Case Digest (G.R. No. 185620)
Facts:
Ruben C. Reyes v. Tang Soat Ing (Joanna Tang) and Ando G. Sy, G.R. No. 185620, December 14, 2011, the Supreme Court Second Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court. The underlying litigation began when MFR Farms, Inc. filed a complaint for Enforcement of Easement and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order against Joanna Tang and Ando G. Sy in Civil Case No. 1245‑M, complaining of respondents’ commercial/industrial use of land subject to TCT No. T-198753 and asserting an encumbrance limiting non‑commercial uses. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Malolos, Bulacan, after trial granted MFR relief: enjoining respondents from industrial/commercial activities on the land, awarding actual and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification—reducing interest and deleting exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Both parties sought relief to the Supreme Court by certiorari under Rule 45, but their petitions were dismissed for late filing/payment; the CA decision became final and executory on December 1, 1997.
Pursuant to the final judgment, a Writ of Execution was issued on September 28, 1998. Sheriff Leovino Legaspi levied on the subject property, served notices (October–December 1998), inscribed a Notice of Levy on the TCT (February 4, 1999), issued and posted a Notice of Sale (May 7, 1999), caused publication (June 12, 19 & 26, 1999), and conducted a public auction on July 19, 1999 in which MFR was declared highest bidder; a Certificate of Sale was registered with the Register of Deeds.
After the redemption period lapsed, MFR moved (September 17, 2004) to have the Register of Deeds cancel the respondents’ TCT and issue a new title; the RTC denied that motion (September 28, 2004) citing Section 107, PD No. 1529 and requiring a petition. MFR then filed a petition (Dec. 1, 2004) in the same execution case, impleading the Register of Deeds; respondents’ counsel received copies on several dates but respondents did not file an answer, were declared in default, and MFR presented evidence ex parte.
MFR substituted its interest to Ruben C. Reyes, and the RTC granted substitution (Jan. 2, 2006) and, by order of Jan. 10, 2006, directed respondents to surrender the owner’s duplicate TCT or have it canceled and a new title issued in Reyes’ name. Service to respondents’ counsel failed; counsel had died in December 2005. Respondents engaged new counsel and, on May 23, 2006, filed an Opposition and Motion to declare the execution sale void. The RTC denied the Opposition and Motion (July 17, 2006) and denied reconsideration (Oct. 20, 2006).
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. SP No. 96913), which annulled and set aside the RTC’s July 17 and October 20, 2006 Orders and declared the July 19, 1999 executi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the execution sale of the property covered by TCT No. T-198753 void for noncompliance with Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court?
- Does Section 107, Presidential Decree No. 1529 require the filing of a separate original (cadastral) action before the RTC, acting as a land registration court, for issuance of a new certificate o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)