G.R. No. 185620 - Reyes vs. Tang Soat Ing

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185620)

Factual Background: The Underlying Judgment in Civil Case No. 1245-M

MFR sued respondents for Enforcement of Easement and Damages with a prayer for injunctive relief, alleging that respondents made commercial or industrial use of their property in defiance of the undertaking stated in the title. MFR specifically complained of respondents’ use of the premises as a chemical processing site and as a storage facility for chemicals, which MFR characterized as industrial use prohibited by the encumbrance in the title. MFR also sought damages for harm to its pig farm allegedly caused by respondents’ operations.

After trial, the RTC ruled in MFR’s favor and ordered, among others: (a) respondents to desist from further industrial or commercial activities on the TCT land, including manufacture and storage of chemicals and construction of buildings intended for prohibited purposes; (b) the permanent continuance of injunctions; (c) payment of actual damages in the amount of P639,650.00 with legal interest at twelve percent (12%) from January 15, 1982 until full payment; (d) exemplary damages of P100,000.00; (e) attorney’s fees of P100,000.00 and costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, reducing the interest rate to six percent (6%) and deleting the awards of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Both parties attempted further review by certiorari to the Supreme Court, but the Court dismissed the appeals due to late filing of legal fees and late filing of the petition. The Court of Appeals decision then became final and executory on December 1, 1997, and it was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment.

Execution of the Final and Executory Judgment

After the judgment became final, MFR moved for execution. On September 28, 1998, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution, directing the Sheriff of RTC Branch 7, Malolos, Bulacan, Mr. Leovino Legaspi (Sheriff Legaspi), to execute the decision dated September 12, 1991, as modified by the Court of Appeals. The sheriff was also ordered to accomplish the return of proceedings in accordance with Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Sheriff Legaspi submitted a Sheriff’s Report detailing service of the writ and notice on October 9, 1998. The sheriff reported that the notice was served on Tang Soat Ing through the caretaker, Rodolfo Mendez, and that later attempts to locate Tang Soat Ing were unsuccessful. The sheriff further reported subsequent events regarding receipt of the notices by counsel, which was rendered impossible due to the death of Atty. Sumawang in December 2005.

On January 7, 1999, the sheriff presented the writ and a Notice of Levy on Execution of Real Property covering TCT No. T-198753 to the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. On February 4, 1999, the notice of levy was inscribed on the title. On May 7, 1999, the sheriff issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of Real Property and posted it on multiple specified bulletin boards and posting locations. The notice was also published in The Times Newsweekly on June 12, 19 and 26, 1999. The auction sale occurred on July 19, 1999, where MFR was declared the highest bidder and a Certificate of Sale was issued on the same date and registered with the Register of Deeds.

The Redemption Lapse and MFR’s Move to Issue a New Title

More than five years elapsed. When respondents did not exercise the right of redemption, MFR filed a motion on September 17, 2004, praying for an RTC order directing the Register of Deeds to cancel TCT No. T-198753 in respondents’ names and issue a new certificate of title in MFR’s name. The RTC denied the motion on September 28, 2004, reasoning that Section 107 of PD 1529 required a petition and a hearing.

On December 1, 2004, MFR filed a petition in the same civil case under Civil Case No. 1245-M, praying for substantially the same reliefs and impleading the Register of Deeds as an additional defendant, and further requesting an order for respondents to surrender the owner’s duplicate copy of the title. Respondents received the petition through their counsel of record on three occasions—December 9, 2004 and February 8 and 17, 2005—but they filed no Answer or responsive pleading. MFR moved to declare respondents in default, served on counsel on June 11, 2005. The RTC granted the motion and MFR presented evidence ex parte.

During the ex parte proceedings, MFR filed a Motion for Substitution of Party Petitioner based on a Deed of Transfer of Interest transferring MFR’s rights over the property to Reyes. On January 2, 2006, the RTC granted substitution. On January 10, 2006, the RTC granted the petition and ordered Tang Soat Ing to surrender the owner’s duplicate copy within thirty (30) days, failing which the Register of Deeds would cancel the title and issue a new owner’s duplicate certificate in Reyes’ name, pursuant to the substitution.

The copies of the order were served on counsel and the Register of Deeds, but service to respondents’ counsel was returned and later rendered impossible after the death of Atty. Sumawang in December 2005. On April 27, 2006, Reyes filed another motion for cancellation of the old title and issuance of a new title in his name. On May 19, 2006, new counsel for respondents appeared. On May 23, 2006, respondents filed an Opposition and Motion, opposing the motion and seeking to declare void the sale of the subject property.

RTC and Court of Appeals Rulings

After exchanges of pleadings, the RTC denied respondents’ Opposition and Motion. The RTC held that Section 107 of PD 1529 did not categorically require the petition to be filed as a separate, distinct action in another court, and it reasoned that a contrary view could subject the final judgment and its enforcement to review or reversal by another court of co-equal jurisdiction. Regarding the challenge to the execution sale, the RTC found substantial compliance with the publication and posting requirements under Section 15, Rule 39, as evidenced by the sheriff’s report, the posting certificate, and the affidavit of publication. The RTC also ruled that respondents were estopped from questioning the proceedings after long silence despite notice.

The RTC denied reconsideration on October 20, 2006. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, seeking nullification of the RTC’s twin orders and a declaration that the execution sale and the issuance/cancellation of title were void. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, annulled and set aside the RTC orders dated July 17, 2006 and October 20, 2006, declared the public auction sale of July 19, 1999 invalid, and declared the Certificate of Sale in favor of Reyes null and void.

The Court of Appeals based its conclusion on the supposed failure to strictly comply with Section 15, Rule 39 and relied on Villaceran v. Beltejar (administrative case). It reasoned that deficiencies in the notice of execution sale were substantial, preventing application of the disputable presumption of regularity. It further held that it was incumbent upon Reyes to prove compliance with the statutory requirements of the execution sale.

Reyes moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied on December 9, 2008. Hence, Reyes filed the Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.

The Issues Raised to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the controversy around two questions. First, whether the execution sale of the property covered by TCT No. T-198753 was void. Second, assuming the validity of the execution sale and Reyes’ ownership, whether Section 107 of PD 1529 contemplates the filing of a separate cadastral case before the RTC acting as a land registration court, rather than a procedure by motion in the execution case or by petition in the same docket under the enforcement court.

The Parties’ Contentions

Reyes argued that the execution sale should not be voided. He maintained that the Court of Appeals incorrectly required him to prove compliance with Section 15, Rule 39 and that respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving lack of notice and lack of compliance.

Respondents asserted that the sheriff did not strictly comply with Section 15, Rule 39, particularly on notice, and invoked Villaceran v. Beltejar to support the invalidation of the execution sale. They also claimed that the petition for issuance of a new title should have been filed as a separate action, emphasizing that Section 107 required a distinct procedural course.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Burden of Proof, Presumption of Regularity, and Notice

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in shifting the burden of evidence to Reyes. It stated that the burden of proving non-compliance with Section 15, Rule 39 rests on the party claiming lack of compliance. It relied on Venzon v. Spouses Juan, explaining that a party alleging lack of posting and publication must prove the negative allegation by a preponderance of evidence. The Court clarified that while posting and publication matters are typically “peculiarly within the knowledge” of the sheriff, the plaintiff cannot automatically require the judgment debtor’s adversary to prove compliance once the judgment debtor attacks notice; instead, the claimant must establish the absence of notice and non-compliance. It also recognized that in Venzon, the sheriff could not testify because he was not served with summons and was no longer connected to the issuing court. In contrast, the Supreme Court ruled that respondents in the present case did not overcome the disputable presumption of regular performance by merely maintaining their claim of lack of notice.

The Court held that respondents’ belated claim of ignorance was contradicted by the records, which showed constructive, if not actual, notice at multiple stages. The sheriff served the writ and notice on October 9, 1998, followed by continued steps leading to levy, sale, and the titling process. The Supreme Court also considered the documentation: (i) registrati

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 185620)

The case arose from Civil Case No. 1245-M for Enforcement of Easement and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order.
The controversy later shifted to the validity of an execution sale and the procedural propriety of a petition under Section 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

Ruben C. Reyes filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 questioning the Court of Appeals’ Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 96913 which had annulled and set aside RTC orders implementing the final judgment.

The Supreme Court partly granted the petition and modified the Court of Appeals’ ruling, thereby validating the execution sale and certificate of sale, while directing dismissal of the title-related petition without prejudice.

Parties and Procedural Posture

MFR Farms, Inc. (MFR) was the original complainant in Civil Case No. 1245-M.

Tang Soat Ing (Joanna Tang) and Ando G. Sy were the defendants against whom MFR sought enforcement of an encumbrance limiting property use.

After litigation, Ruben C. Reyes became substituted as petitioner based on a Deed of Transfer of Interest.

The RTC, Branch 7, Malolos, Bulacan initially granted MFR’s complaint and later issued orders denying respondents’ opposition and motion to void the execution sale.

The Court of Appeals annulled the RTC orders in CA-G.R. SP No. 96913.

Reyes then sought Supreme Court review, while the Court’s final disposition validated the auction sale but required proper titling procedure.

Key Factual Allegations

MFR alleged that respondents’ commercial and industrial use of property covered by TCT No. T-198753 violated an undertaking in the title limiting use to non-commercial, non-industrial purposes.

MFR prayed for enforcement of the encumbrance and for damages for harm to its pig farm allegedly caused by respondents’ prohibited activities.

The RTC found that respondents used the land as a chemical processing site and chemical storage facility, which constituted industrial purposes prohibited by the title.

The RTC found that respondents’ chemical manufacturing process generated gaseous by-products constituting pollutants causing direct and manifest harm to humans and animals.

After finality of the appellate judgment, MFR moved for issuance of a Writ of Execution, leading to levy, publication and posting of sale, and a public auction sale.

At the public auction, MFR was the highest bidder, and a Certificate of Sale was issued and registered.

After expiration of the redemption period and respondents’ inaction, Reyes (substituted by MFR) sought RTC action directing cancellation of the old title and issuance of a new certificate in Reyes’ name.

Respondents later filed an Opposition and Motion claiming the execution sale and title-cancellation proceedings were void.

RTC Judgment in the Main Case

The RTC granted MFR’s complaint and ordered respondents to desist from industrial or commercial activities on the subject land, including manufacture and storage of chemicals and construction of buildings for prohibited purposes.

The RTC made permanent prior injunctions issued in 1982 and 1983.

The RTC awarded actual damages of P639,650.00 with legal interest of 12% from filing of the complaint on January 15, 1982 until full payment.

The RTC awarded exemplary damages of P100,000.00 and attorney’s fees of P100,000.00, plus costs of suit.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification by reducing interest to 6% and deleting the awards of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

Finality and Execution Timeline

Both MFR and respondents separately appealed by certiorari to the Supreme Court, but the Court dismissed the appeals for late filing and late payment of legal fees.

The Court of Appeals’ modified decision became final and executory on December 1, 1997 and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment.

On September 28, 1998, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution upon motion of MFR.

Pursuant to the writ, Sheriff Leovino Legaspi was ordered to execute the RTC decision as modified by the Court of Appeals and to submit a return of proceedings in accordance with Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

The sheriff’s report reflected service of the writ on October 9, 1998, with respondents given five days to comply.

The sheriff later made further visits and reported that respondents had no more properties and that the factory in the compound was being leased to others.

On January 7, 1999, the sheriff presented the writ and Notice of Levy on Execution of Real Property to the Register of Deeds, and on February 4, 1999, the levy was inscribed on the title.

On May 7, 1999, the sheriff issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of Real Property and posted it on multiple designated bulletin boards and locations.

The notice of sale was published on June 12, 19 and 26, 1999 in The Times Newsweekly.

On July 19, 1999, at the public auction, MFR was declared highest bidder and received a Certificate of Sale, which was registered with the Register of Deeds.

After more than five years, on September 17, 2004, MFR filed a motion seeking cancellation of the title and issuance of a new title in its name.

The RTC denied the motion, ruling that Section 107 of PD 1529 required a petition and hearing rather than a mere motion.

Reyes’ Substitution and RTC Orders Challenged

On December 1, 2004, Reyes’ predecessor (MFR) filed a Petition in the same civil case seeking relief under Section 107 of PD 1529, and impleaded the Register of Deeds as additional defendant.

Respondents failed to file an Answer or other responsive pleading despite receipt of the petition on multiple occasions.

The RTC granted MFR’s motion to declare respondents in default and received evidence ex parte.

During ex parte proceedings, MFR filed a motion for substitution attaching a deed transferring MFR’s rights to Ruben C. Reyes.

On January 2, 2006, the RTC granted substitution.

On January 10, 2006, the RTC ordered respondents to surrender the owner’s duplicate copy of the title within 30 days and directed cancellation and issuance of a new duplicate in Reyes’ name if respondents failed to surrender.

Copies of the order were served on respondents’ counsel, the register of deeds, and Reyes’ counsel, but service on counsel proved impossible because Atty. T. J. Sumawang had died in December 2005.

On May 23, 2006, respondents filed an Opposition and Motion opposing Reyes’ petition and moving to declare void the sale.

The RTC denied the opposition and motion for lack of merit, holding that Section 107 of PD 1529 did not require a separate action in a different court and that there was substantial compliance with Section 15, Rule 39 requirements.

The RTC further concluded that respondents were estopped from questioning the proceedings due to their silence and delay.

The RTC denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration on October 20, 2006.

Issues Presented

The Court had to determine whether the execution sale of the property covered by TCT No. T-198753 was void.

The Court had to determine whether Section 107 of PD 1529 co
...continue reading