Case Digest (G.R. No. 212246)
Facts:
Ofelia Gamilla v. Burgundy Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 212246, June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Ofelia Gamilla (petitioner) bid at and became the highest bidder in a public auction of a condominium unit owned by Burgundy Realty Corporation (BRC) — a 30-sqm unit covered by Condominium Certificate of Title No. 5708 in Quezon City (the subject property). The City Treasurer of Quezon City issued a Statement of Delinquency on May 10, 2005, a Final Notice of Delinquency on July 28, 2005, and a Warrant of Levy that was annotated on the tax declaration and later on the CCT; notices of sale were published and posted; the auction occurred on September 15, 2005; a certificate of sale issued to Gamilla on September 30, 2005; and after one year the City Treasurer executed a Final Bill of Sale in Gamilla’s favor, which she caused to be annotated on the CCT.
Gamilla filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 221, Quezon City, to cancel CCT No. 5708 and have a new CCT issued in her name. BRC opposed, arguing the tax sale was void for failure to comply with the notice and levy requirements of Sections 176 and 178 of R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) and specifically denied having received the notices. Gamilla countered that BRC had not complied with Section 267 of R.A. No. 7160 — the deposit requirement — and therefore the opposition should not be entertained.
The RTC initially directed BRC to deposit the sale amount pursuant to Section 267; BRC failed to comply, was declared in default, and its opposition was expunged, permitting Gamilla to present evidence ex parte. On June 23, 2010 the RTC rendered judgment annulling the duplicate CCT and ordering issuance of a new CCT in Gamilla’s name. BRC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on November 26, 2012 reversed and set aside the RTC decision, finding the tax sale procedurally irregular because notices were not proved to have been delivered to authorized representatives of BRC; the CA denied Gamilla’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated April 22, 2014.
Gamilla filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the CA’s decision and resolution, mainly arguing (1) the CA should not hav...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly take cognizance of BRC’s action despite BRC’s failure to comply with Section 267 of R.A. No. 7160?
- Should the tax-acquisition auction sale and resulting transfer of title be annulled for lack of proper notice of delinquency and levy under Sections 176 and 178 of ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)