Case Digest (G.R. No. 154262)
Facts:
Herminio M. De Guzman, for himself and as Attorney-in-Fact of: Nilo M. De Guzman, Angelino De Guzman, Josefino M. De Guzman, Estrella M. De Guzman, Teresita De Guzman, Elsa Margarita M. De Guzman, Evelyn M. De Guzman, Ma. Nimia M. De Guzman, Antolin M. De Guzman, and Ferdinand M. De Guzman v. Tabangao Realty Incorporated, G.R. No. 154262, February 11, 2015, First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court.In about 1980 spouses Serafin and Amelia de Guzman and Josefino de Guzman became authorized distributors of Filipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (FSPC) and purchased products on credit. When they failed to pay, FSPC sued Serafin and Josefino in Civil Case No. 120680 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila; after judgment in favor of FSPC became final, a writ of execution issued May 3, 1983. A Notice of Levy was annotated on the subject Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 3531 on July 1, 1983; a Sheriffs Certificate of Sale was later executed February 4, 1988, showing sale of the 74,415 sq. m. parcel in Sta. Cruz de Malabon, Trece Martires City to Tabangao Realty Incorporated for P70,000; the Sheriffs Certificate was annotated on TCT No. 3531 on April 13, 1988. No redemption was alleged within one year of registration.
On October 19, 2001 petitioners (the De Guzman children, represented by Herminio as attorney‑in‑fact) filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title in RTC‑Trece Martires (Civil Case No. TM‑1118). They alleged they inherited the property, that the annotations on the title (execution entry, notice of levy, Sheriffs Certificate of Sale, BIR certification) were either void or had been extinguished by prescription, laches or estoppel, and advanced several grounds: (a) the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale was internally inconsistent (levy and sale reported on the same date), (b) any sale was void for lack of notice/publication, (c) Tabangao allegedly was legally incapable of owning agricultural land beyond retention limits, (d) respondent acted in bad faith and fraud in failing to consolidate title, and (e) the writ of execution and notice of levy had prescribed.
Tabangao sought and obtained an extension to answer but instead filed a Motion to Dismiss on two grounds: (1) the Complaint lacked a proper Certification Against Forum Shopping under Rule 7, Sec. 5 of the 1997 Rules of Court (only Herminio signed though eleven heirs were named), and (2) the Complaint failed to state a cause of action because petitioners had no title or interest to quiet given the execution sale and expiration of the redemption period. Petitioners opposed, relying on a Special Power of Attorney authorizing Herminio to sue and sign pleadings and arguing the Motion to Dismiss impermissibly controverted well‑pleaded facts.
On March 4, 2002 the RTC, Branch 23, Trece Martires City granted the Motion to Dismiss, held the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale and its annotation valid, concluded that by operation of Rule 39, Sec. 33 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure the purchaser had been substituted to and acquired the rights of the judgment obligor upon expiration of the one‑year redemption period (April 13, 1989), and dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. A motion for reconsideration was denied May 21, 2002.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC orders on pure questions of law — chi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC commit reversible error in dismissing petitioners' Complaint for Quieting of Title for failure to state a cause of action?
- May Rule 39, Section 33 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure be applied retroactively to a sale and redemption period that occurred under the old Rule 39, Section 35?
- When does a purchaser at an execution sale acquire all rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor — upon expiration of the statutory redemption period or only upon execution and delivery of a final deed of conveyance — and is there a prescriptive period for compelling the sheriff to execute such deed?
- Were petitioners' specific factual claims (no actual sale, lack of notice/publication, respondent's incapacity to own agricultural land, fraud/bad faith, and prescription/laches) sufficient to re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)