G.R. No. 241168. August 22, 2022.
BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BCDA), PETITIONER, VS. PEDRO S. CALLANGAN, JR., ELIZABETH BARBA-AZARES, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND ORLANDO AZARES, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, HENRY T. VILLEGAS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents Pedro Callangan, Jr. and Elizabeth Barba-Azares filed a complaint for recovery of possession, cancellation, and issuance of tax declarations against petitioner BCDA and the City Assessor of Taguig. They claimed ownership over parcels of land within Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, by virtue of titles derived from a 1976 purchase. They alleged prior open possession until 2009 when BCDA invoked Proclamation No. 1725, which declared the Diplomatic and Consular Area (DCA) as alienable and disposable and placed it under BCDA’s administration. Respondents sought the issuance of new tax declarations after availing of a Land Registration Authority program.
BCDA opposed, asserting that the subject properties are within the DCA, a former military reservation declared for public use. It argued that respondents’ titles, originating from a 1913 Spanish title, were dubious and that the lands, being part of a reserved military camp, are inalienable. The Regional Trial Court granted respondents’ motion for partial summary judgment, directing the City Assessor to issue tax declarations in their favor. BCDA filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, arguing grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting a partial summary judgment directing the issuance of tax declarations despite the existence of genuine issues of fact regarding ownership.

RULING

Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. A partial summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Here, the core issue of ownership is inextricably linked to the entitlement to a tax declaration. The pleadings and documents reveal substantial factual controversies. BCDA presented Proclamation No. 1725, which placed the DCA under its administration “subject to private rights if any there be.” This phrase inherently acknowledges a potential conflict of claims that requires a full trial to resolve. Furthermore, BCDA consistently challenged the validity of respondents’ titles, arguing the land was part of an inalienable military reservation. These defenses directly put respondents’ ownership in question.
The issuance of a tax declaration, while not conclusive proof of ownership, is a significant step premised on a claim of right. Directing its issuance via summary judgment, when the very basis of that right is hotly contested, preemptively resolves a central issue in the case. The trial court’s order effectively decided a critical aspect of the case—the strength of respondents’ claim against BCDA’s challenge—without a full trial on the merits. This was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, constituting grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the challenged orders, and remanded the case for further proceedings to properly thresh out the genuine issues of ownership and possession.