Case Digest (G.R. No. 177429)
Facts:
Anicia Valdez-Tallorin v. Heirs of Juanito Tarona, G.R. No. 177429, November 24, 2009, the Supreme Court Second Division, Abad, J., writing for the Court. The petition challenges the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court rulings annulling a tax declaration issued in favor of petitioner Anicia Valdez-Tallorin and two co-owners, and ordering reinstatement of the prior declaration in the name of deceased Juanito Tarona and issuance of a new declaration to his heirs (respondents represented by Carlos, Rogelio, and Lourdes Tarona).On February 9, 1998 the Taronas filed Civil Case No. 6739 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga, Bataan seeking annulment of Tax Declaration No. 6164 issued in 1981 in the names of Tallorin, Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez, and Dolores Valdez, and reinstatement of Tax Declaration No. 463 in their father Juanito’s name (or issuance of a new declaration in the heirs’ names). They alleged Tax Declaration 463 was cancelled based on an unsigned but notarized affidavit of Juanito that was missing from the Assessor’s records, and that the disappearance suggested forgery or falsification.
The Taronas moved on March 6, 1998 to declare Tallorin in default for late filing of an answer; Tallorin nevertheless submitted a belated answer claiming she possessed a copy of Juanito’s affidavit (with his thumbmark), asserting he was merely an agricultural tenant who had surrendered tenancy for consideration, and raising affirmative defenses including non-compliance with conciliation and prescription. The RTC initially admitted Tallorin’s late answer (March 12) and denied the Taronas’ reconsideration (June 2); the Court of Appeals (CA), via special civil action certiorari (CA-G.R. SP 50096), annulled those RTC orders, finding grave abuse in admitting the late answer without a motion to do so and concluding the RTC should have acted on the motion to declare default.
On remand the RTC declared Tallorin in default, directed the Taronas to present evidence ex parte, and on January 30, 2002 rendered judgment annulling Tax Declaration 6164, reinstating Tax Declaration 463, and ordering a new declaration in the heirs’ names; the RTC held Juanito’s affidavit had no binding force because it was unsigned. Tallorin appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. CV 74762). On May 22, 2...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to dismiss the Taronas’ complaint for not impleading Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and Dolores Valdez as indispensable parties?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in not ruling that the Taronas’ complaint was barred by prescription?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC’s finding that Juanito’s affidavit had no legal effect because it was unsigned when a thumbmark wa...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)