GR 266538; (August, 2024) (Digest)
G.R. No. 266538, August 12, 2024
Sps. Rogelio D. Mina and Sotera S. Mina, Petitioners, vs. Henry B. Aquende, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Rogelio D. Mina and Sotera S. Mina were the registered owners of a house and lot in Muntinlupa City. The City Treasurer sold the property at a public auction on November 8, 2017, due to alleged nonpayment of real property taxes, with respondent Henry B. Aquende as the winning bidder. A Certificate of Sale was issued and annotated on the title. On January 10, 2022, Spouses Mina filed a Complaint for Annulment of Tax Sale before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), alleging the auction was invalid for non-compliance with statutory notice requirements under the Local Government Code and that the sale price was unconscionable. In his Answer, Aquende contended, among others, that Spouses Mina failed to deposit with the court the amount for which the property was sold plus interest, as required by Section 267 of the Local Government Code. Spouses Mina, in their Reply, stated their willingness to make the deposit once ordered by the court, claiming the Clerk of Court advised them to wait for such an order. The MeTC dismissed the Complaint, ruling that the deposit under Section 267 is a jurisdictional requirement that must be paid simultaneously with the filing of the action. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC’s dismissal. Spouses Mina filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether Section 267 of the Local Government Code requires the deposit to be made simultaneously with the filing of the complaint assailing a tax sale, such that non-payment at the time of filing warrants outright dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the lower courts. The deposit required under Section 267 of the Local Government Code is mandatory and jurisdictional. However, it need not be paid simultaneously with the filing of the complaint. The Court clarified that while the deposit is a condition precedent for the court to entertain the action, failure to make the deposit at the time of filing does not automatically result in the dismissal of the case. The taxpayer must be given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the deposit requirement. The trial court should first order the complainant to make the deposit within a fixed period. Dismissal is warranted only if the complainant fails to comply with such an order. In this case, the MeTC erred in dismissing the complaint outright without first ordering Spouses Mina to make the required deposit. The case was remanded to the MeTC with instructions to issue an order directing Spouses Mina to deposit the amount specified under Section 267 within a reasonable time.