GR L 15869; (August, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15869; August 31, 1961
AMANDA TRIGAL, MANUEL T. PAZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SABINA TOBIAS, as Administratrix of the trusteeship of AURELIO REYES and MARIANO V. TAJONERA, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiffs, heirs of Fermin Paz, filed an action in the CFI of Manila seeking the annulment of a tax sale at public auction of two parcels of land to Aurelio Reyes and a subsequent transfer to Mariano V. Tajonera. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of res judicata, citing a prior 1943 Order from the Registration Court (G.L.R.O. Cad. Record No. 307) that cancelled Fermin Paz’s title and directed the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of Aurelio Reyes. They also alleged lack of jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with statutory prerequisites for contesting a tax sale. The lower court initially deferred resolution on the motion but later reconsidered and dismissed the complaint, holding the 1943 Order constituted res judicata.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint on the grounds of res judicata, prescription, and lack of jurisdiction for non-compliance with statutory requirements for contesting a tax sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for trial on the merits. On res judicata, the Court held the plea was not indubitable. The 1943 Registration Court Order was merely a ministerial issuance of a new title based on Reyes’s petition as the auction purchaser; it did not constitute a judicial determination of the validity of the underlying tax sale itself. Since the plaintiffs alleged the sale was void ab initio due to non-compliance with statutory requirements for advertisement and posting, a matter not litigated in the prior proceeding, res judicata did not clearly apply. On prescription, an action to annul a void contract does not prescribe. On the jurisdictional requirement under Section 77 of Republic Act No. 1837 (requiring payment of the sale price and interest into court before filing suit), the Court held the presumption was that the law was complied with once the court entertained the complaint. The defendants’ assertion of non-compliance required proof, and this factual issue should be resolved during a full hearing. Thus, the grounds for dismissal were not indubitably established, necessitating a trial.