Case Digest (G.R. No. 208740)
Facts:
Corporate Strategies Development Corp. and Rafael R. Prieto, petitioners, v. Norman A. Agojo, respondent, G.R. No. 208740, November 19, 2014, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. The petition seeks review under Rule 45 of the Court of Appeals’ March 18, 2013 Amended Decision and August 15, 2013 Resolution (CA G.R. CV No. 96076) that reversed the RTC’s January 15, 2010 dismissal of respondent’s petition for issuance of a new certificate of title.The subject is a 1,000 sq. m. parcel in Makati City (Lot 18, Block 29, Pcs-1310) registered in the name of CSDC under TCT No. 125211 and tax declarations in CSDC’s name. Real property taxes for 1994–2006 totaling P1,458,199.85 remained unpaid. A warrant of levy was issued by the City Treasurer of Makati on April 7, 2006 pursuant to Section 258 of the Local Government Code (LGC). A public auction was held on May 24, 2006; respondent was the highest bidder at P2,000,000, received a certificate of sale which was registered, and a Final Deed of Conveyance was issued on July 3, 2007 after the one-year redemption period.
Respondent filed LRC Case No. M-5050 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati for entry of a new certificate of title. The RTC set the case for hearing and directed service on interested parties on February 13, 2008. CSDC filed opposition on August 22, 2008 and Prieto filed his opposition on October 20, 2008, contesting lack of due process in the tax sale (alleging defective mailing/service of notice and warrant, failure to post and publish, failure to notify the Register of Deeds and City Assessor, failure to annotate title, and gross inadequacy of the bid). CSDC moved to deposit P3,080,000 under Section 267 of the LGC; the RTC granted the motion on August 29, 2008.
On January 15, 2010, the RTC dismissed respondent’s petition, declaring the auction sale invalid for failure to prove compliance with legal requirements. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On January 26, 2012 the CA initially affirmed the RTC. After respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the CA reversed its ruling on March 18, 2013, invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of the City Treasurer’s duties and declaring the auction sale valid, directing issuance of a new title to respondent. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in the August 15, 2013 resolution. Petitioners then filed this Rule 45 petition raising, inter alia, that (a) the CA erroneously applied the presumption of regularity; (b) the CA disregarded mandatory LGC requir...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the petition be dismissed for failure of petitioners’ counsel to indicate MCLE compliance?
- Does the presumption of regularity of official acts apply to a tax delinquency sale that deprives a taxpayer of property?
- Did respondent prove compliance with the LGC requirements (notice of delinquency, service of warrant of levy, posting and publication, and annotation) for a valid tax delinquency sale?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in placing on petitioners the burden of proving invalidity of the sale?
- Should the Court decide the question of gros...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)