Case Digest (G.R. No. 235484)
Facts:
City Government of Antipolo v. Transmix Builders & Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 235484*, August 09, 2023, First Division, Gesmundo, C.J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are the City Government of Antipolo and the City Treasurer of Antipolo; the respondent is Transmix Builders & Construction, Inc.Clarisa San Juan Santos originally owned three lots in Antipolo (TCT Nos. 175110, 175111, 175112). In January 1997 respondent purchased the three parcels and caused new TCTs to be issued in its name (TCT Nos. 328857–328859), but the tax declarations were not updated to reflect respondent as owner. In 2005 the City Treasurer published notices of delinquency and issued warrants of levy and notices of levy; the City Treasurer mailed warrants and other notices to Santos at the address appearing in the tax declarations. A public auction was held on December 28, 2005; for lack of bidders the properties were forfeited to the City and Declarations of Forfeiture were issued that same date.
Respondent later sought to settle the delinquent real property taxes (RPT). In 2010 the City passed City Ordinance No. 2010-398 providing a limited amnesty (interest condonation) for delinquent RPTs if certain conditions were met. Respondent paid and updated RPTs on November 17, 2010 and obtained certifications of payment in January 2011, but the City Treasurer informed respondent in February 2011 that the payments would be “held in trust” because the properties had been forfeited. Titles were registered in the name of the City on March 28, 2011.
On December 18, 2014 respondent filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Civil Case No. 14-10486, seeking declaration of nullity of the public auction, certificate of sale, titles, and reconveyance. In its November 18, 2016 Decision the RTC declared that the City’s forfeiture proceedings were void and ordered reconveyance of the properties to respondent, reasoning that notice to the registered owner was required and the City had effectively condoned the delinquency by allowing the amnesty and accepting payments. In an October 2, 2017 Order the RTC amended its decision to nullify the December 28, 2005 forfeiture proceedings, direct cancellation of the City’s T...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the direct appeal to the Supreme Court proper under Rule 45?
- Were the levy, sale, and forfeiture of the subject properties valid under the Local Government Code (LGC) and applicable law?
- Are petitioners estopped from asserting the forfeiture because the City accepted respondent’s RPT payments?
- Should the deposit consigne...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)