G.R. No. 106588 - Sesbreno vs. Central Board of Assessment Appeals

On February 9, 1998, respondents Carlos, Rogelio, and Lourdes Tarona (the Taronas) filed an action before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga, Bataan, seeking the annulment of a tax declaration.
The tax declaration at issue was Tax Declaration 6164, issued in the names of petitioner Anicia Valdez-Tallorin (Tallorin) and two other women, Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and Dolores Valdez, instead of remaining in the name of Juanito Tarona, father of the Taronas.

The Taronas alleged that, in 1981, the Assessor’s Office of Morong, Bataan, had cancelled Tax Declaration 463 which was issued in Juanito Tarona’s name.
It was claimed that the cancellation was based on an unsigned yet notarized affidavit allegedly executed by Juanito Tarona, transferring his rights over the property to Tallorin and the other two women.
The affidavit was missing from the official records of the Assessor’s Office, raising suspicions that the cancellation and subsequent issuance of Tax Declaration 6164 were executed illegally and perhaps even involved falsification or forgery.

Annulment of Tax Declaration 6164 issued in favor of Tallorin, Margarita Pastelero, and Dolores Valdez.
Reinstatement of the original Tax Declaration 463 in Juanito Tarona’s name.
Issuance of a new tax declaration in favor of Juanito Tarona’s heirs.

A motion was filed by the Taronas on March 6, 1998, to have Tallorin declared in default for her failure to answer the complaint within the prescribed period.
Before the RTC could rule on the motion, Tallorin filed a belated answer which included:

A claim that she possessed a copy of the missing affidavit.
An allegation that Juanito Tarona, then an agricultural tenant, had executed the affidavit surrendering his tenancy rights in consideration of payment.
Affirmative defenses based on non-compliance with conciliation proceedings and the issue of prescription.

The RTC initially set the affirmative defenses for hearing but then denied the Taronas’ motion for reconsideration regarding Tallorin’s default based on:

Receipt of Tallorin’s belated answer prior to issuance of a default order.
Lack of proof that Tallorin was properly notified of the motion to declare her in default.

The Taronas secured relief through a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which annulled specific RTC orders (the March 12 and June 2, 1998 orders) on the grounds that the late answer should not have been admitted without proper hearing on the default motion.
Upon remand, the RTC granted the motion to declare Tallorin in default and conducted ex parte proceedings leading to a January 30, 2002 judgment:

Annulment of the tax declaration bearing Tallorin, Margarita Pastelero, and Dolores Valdez’ names.
Reinstatement of Tax Declaration 463 in Juanito Tarona’s name.
Ordering the issuance of a new tax declaration in the names of Juanito Tarona’s heirs.
Ruling that Juanito Tarona’s affidavit lacked legal effect due to his failure to sign it.

Her claim to title since the property was allegedly titled in her name and those of her co-owners.
The proper legal effect of the affidavit, contending that despite being unsigned, it was thumbmarked and acknowledged before a notary public.
The improper dismissal of the necessity to implead Margarita Pastelero and Dolores Valdez as indispensable parties.

On May 22, 2006, the CA rendered judgment affirming the RTC’s decision, rejecting Tallorin’s arguments on the basis that:

She did not assign as error the order declaring her in default.
Her participation during the trial was insufficient to raise her contentions, rendering them mere conjectures unsupported by evidence.
The CA notably did not address the issue regarding the failure to implead the other two named parties.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to dismiss the Taronas’ complaint for not impleading Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and Dolores Valdez, whose rights were directly affected by the annulled tax declaration.
Whether the CA erred in not ruling that the Taronas’ complaint was barred by prescription.
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s finding that Juanito Tarona’s affidavit had no legal effect due to the absence of his signature, despite evidence (a thumbmark) suggesting his acknowledgment.