Case Summary (G.R. No. 118978)
Facts of the Transaction and Dispute
- Petitioner corporation was the registered owner of TCT No. 185260 for a large New Manila parcel. In 1997, an alleged Deed of Absolute Sale, executed by petitioner through Yao in favor of respondent for P60,000,000, purportedly required petitioner to pay capital gains tax (CGT) and documentary stamp tax (DST) and required respondent to pay transfer tax and registration fees.
- Respondent claimed possession and payment of real property taxes since 1997. Petitioner allegedly failed to deliver possession and to pay CGT and DST. Respondent thus filed a complaint for specific performance on 7 April 2015. Two weeks later she filed a petition for mandamus to annul derivative titles and reinstate TCT No. 185260 based on alleged fraud and possession of an owner’s duplicate certificate by respondent.
Service of Process and Early Proceedings
- In the specific performance case (Br. 95-RTC), the deputy sheriff attempted service at the 6th Floor, PBCom Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati, on 16 and 23 April 2015; those attempts were unsuccessful according to the sheriff’s return. Respondent moved for substituted service by publication and the trial court granted it on 9 June 2015. Petitioner was later declared in default and Br. 95-RTC rendered judgment by default on 21 October 2016 ordering petitioner to pay CGT and DST and to deliver possession.
- In the mandamus case (Br. 76-RTC), the sheriff’s return showed service at PBCom 6th Floor through a receptionist who refused to sign; Br. 76-RTC initially decided for respondent but, on reconsideration, set aside its decision due to invalid service and lack of ex parte evidence, thus dismissing the mandamus decision. Br. 76 later dismissed the mandamus petition with prejudice on forum-shopping grounds.
Trial Court’s Additional Orders and Writ of Execution
- Subsequent to the default judgment, respondent filed an omnibus motion seeking cancellation of derivative titles, reinstatement of TCT No. 185260, annotation of the Deed of Absolute Sale, and issuance of a new title in her name. Br. 95-RTC granted part of this relief in an order dated 13 December 2016 and issued a writ of execution on 24 April 2017 that directed execution of both the default decision and the subsequent order. The RD of Quezon City resisted implementation citing Torrens-title stability and Section 48 of PD 1529; the LRA issued a legal opinion inclined to compliance because the trial court’s decision was final and executory.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Petitioner sought certiorari before the CA (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 150941). The CA (Division of Five) dismissed petitioner’s petition on the ground that the proper remedy was a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 because the attack primarily concerned lack of jurisdiction over the person due to defective service. The CA further held the summons by publication valid. One CA justice dissented, finding patent invalidity in service and that the writ of execution expanded the judgment beyond its dispositive terms.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court distilled the issues to: (1) the propriety of invoking Rule 65 certiorari rather than other remedies; (2) the validity of service of summons by publication; and (3) whether the writ of execution impermissibly expanded the judgment’s reliefs.
Legal Standards Applied
- A void judgment is a nullity for lack of legal effect; it may be attacked directly by Rule 47 (annulment) or by Rule 65 (certiorari) when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Service by publication is extraordinary, allowed only when the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, and then only upon written motion supported by affidavit and after proof of diligent efforts by the sheriff. The writ of execution must substantially conform to the judgment to be executed.
Analysis on Proper Remedy and Rule 65 Jurisdiction
- The Court rejected the CA’s narrow view that Rule 47 was the exclusive remedy. The petition challenged not only the court’s jurisdiction over petitioner’s person (due to defective service) but also alleged grave abuse of discretion by the trial judge in issuing a writ of execution that went beyond the judgment’s dispositive terms. Where grave abuse of discretion is shown, Rule 65 is an appropriate and sometimes necessary remedy to promptly correct jurisdictional defects or acts amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized a holistic, justice-oriented approach permitting certiorari when circumstances justify departure from rigid procedural confines.
Analysis on Service by Publication and Diligence Requirement
- The Court found service by publication invalid. The record showed only two attempts by the sheriff at the PBCom 6th Floor on two dates; the sheriff did not demonstrate the required multiple personal service attempts (preferably three attempts on at least two different dates), nor any reasonable diligence such as verifying alternate addresses, pursuing substituted service, inquiring further with building personnel, checking the complete GIS pages that contained a different (KM 16) address, visiting the subject property, or using other reasonable means to locate petitioner. The absence of a supporting affidavit for the motion to publish compounded the deficiency. The presumption of regularity in sheriffs’ acts does not salvage patently defective returns; strict compliance is required for publication service because publication is extraordinary and derogates from personal service.
Analysis on Expansion of Writ of Execution and Due Process
- The Court held that the writ of execution was improper and further aggravated the nullity because it included directives not prayed for in the complaint or stated in the dispositive portion of the default judgment: specifically, orders to cancel derivative titles, reinstate TCT No. 185260, annotate the Deed of Absolute Sale, and issue a new title in respondent’s name. A writ of execution cannot lawfully extend beyond the judgment it en
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 118978)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Titan Dragon Properties Corporation (petitioner) assailing:
- Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), Division of Five, dated 01 June 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 150941; and
- Resolution of the CA, Special Division of Five, Special Former Third Division, dated 26 February 2019.
- These CA rulings affirmed the Regional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon City (Br. 95-RTC) Decision dated 21 October 2016 in Civil Case No. R-QZN-15-03231-CV (specific performance case).
- Prior related proceedings included a Petition for Mandamus filed by respondent in Br. 76-RTC (Civil Case No. R-QZM-15-03669-CV) and subsequent actions up to petitions in the CA and this Court.
- The Supreme Court (G.R. No. 246088, April 28, 2021) resolved the present Rule 45 petition, reviewed the CA rulings, and issued the final disposition in the matter.
Subject Property and Written Contract
- The controversy concerns a 70,364-square meter parcel of land located in Barangay Damayan Lagi, New Manila, Quezon City (subject property).
- The subject property was registered in the name of Titan Dragon Properties Corporation under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 185260.
- Petitioner, through its then President Antonio L. Yao, allegedly executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 08 December 1997 in favor of respondent Marlina Veloso-Galenzoga for the amount of Php60,000,000.00.
- Under the Deed: petitioner was to pay the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and Documentary Stamp Tax (DST); respondent agreed to pay the transfer tax and registration fee.
- Respondent asserted that she paid real property taxes on the subject property since 1997; she averred petitioner failed to deliver possession and failed to pay CGT and DST.
Actions Filed and Reliefs Sought
- Respondent filed a Complaint for Specific Performance dated 07 April 2015 in Br. 95-RTC to compel petitioner to perform its obligations (pay CGT/DST and deliver possession).
- On 21 April 2015, respondent filed a Petition for Mandamus in Br. 76-RTC seeking to compel the Register of Deeds (RD) of Quezon City to:
- Annul and cancel two derivative titles allegedly issued in the name of petitioner (TCT Nos. 004-2015001698 and 004-2015001699); and
- Reinstate TCT No. 185260, alleging a fraudulent subdivision and asserting an owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 185260 was in her possession.
- Respondent’s mandamus alleged fraud in cancellation and issuance of derivative titles; her specific performance complaint sought only payment of taxes (CGT/DST) and delivery of possession.
Service of Summons — Sheriff's Returns and Motions
- In the specific performance case (Br. 95-RTC), the sheriff’s return dated 27 April 2015 recorded attempts to serve summons at the 6th Floor, PBCom Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati:
- 16 April 2015: an administrative assistant (Ms. Gina Busque) informed the sheriff that the company did not exist at the address; the sheriff verified the 6th floor was occupied by PBCom bank.
- 23 April 2015: the building manager (Mr. Jonathan P. Roda) again informed the sheriff that petitioner was not holding office at that address.
- Respondent moved for substituted service (publication), and Br. 95-RTC granted the motion in an Order dated 09 June 2015.
- In the mandamus case (Br. 76-RTC), the sheriff’s return dated 11 May 2015 recorded service at the PBCom 6th Floor upon a front desk representative (Jona Agustin) who refused to sign; Br. 76-RTC declared service proper.
- Petitioner later contended service was invalid because it was made to a receptionist not authorized under Section 11, Rule 14 (service upon domestic private juridical entities).
Trial Court Rulings and Subsequent Orders
- Br. 76-RTC (Presiding Judge Alexander S. Balut) rendered Decision in favor of respondent on 16 June 2015 ordering:
- Cancellation of the two derivative titles in petitioner’s name;
- Reinstatement of TCT No. 185260;
- Annotation of the Deed of Absolute Sale on TCT No. 185260; and
- Issuance of a new certificate of title in respondent’s name upon payment of necessary fees.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (01 July 2015) in the mandamus case alleging improper service; Br. 76-RTC, under a new presiding judge (Acting Presiding Judge Maria Gilda Loja-Pangilinan), granted reconsideration in a Resolution dated 21 April 2016, set aside the 16 June 2015 Decision, and ordered that summons be issued to petitioner.
- In the specific performance case, petitioner was declared in default on motion of respondent on 12 July 2016; Br. 95-RTC rendered Decision by default on 21 October 2016 ordering petitioner to pay CGT and DST and to deliver possession to respondent.
- Respondent filed an Omnibus Motion (27 October 2016) seeking cancellation of derivative titles, reinstatement of TCT No. 185260, annotation of the Deed, and issuance of a new title in her name.
- The Decision in Br. 95-RTC became final and executory on 12 December 2016 (Certificate of Finality issued 04 January 2017). On 13 December 2016, the trial court partly granted respondent’s Omnibus Motion and ordered the RD to annotate the Deed on TCT No. 185260 and to issue a new title in respondent’s name upon payment of fees or presentation of the Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR) from the BIR.
Writ of Execution, RD Concerns, and LRA Involvement
- A Writ of Execution was issued on 24 April 2017 to effect both the 21 October 2016 Decision and the 13 December 2016 Order; a Notice to Comply was sent to petitioner and the RD of Quezon City.
- The Deputy RD (Atty. Myra Roby S. Puruganan) wrote the Land Registration Authority (LRA) on 19 May 2017 seeking guidance, noting:
- TCT No. 185260 had been cancelled and two derivative titles issued due to subdivision;
- An alleged owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 185260 was presented on 16 April 2015, which the RD found dubious and requested investigation on authenticity.
- The LRA Task Force Titulong Malinis (TFTM No. 15-009), supported by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Banknotes and Securities Printing Department report dated 17 March 2017, found the cancelled owner’s duplicate and original/registry copies of TCT No. 185260 to be authentic and genuine.
- The Deputy RD advised that compliance with the trial court’s order might amount to a collateral attack on the title in violation of Section 48 of PD 1529 (a certificate of title not subject to collateral attack).
- LRA Administrator Renato D. Bermejo issued an undated Legal Opinion inclined to execution, citing the finality of the trial court’s decision.
- RD filed a Manifestation with Br. 95-RTC stating the title sought to be cancelled had already been cancelled and that the RD could not process issuance of a new title from a cancelled title.
Contempt Proceedings, Withdrawal, and Forum Shopping Findings
- Br. 95-RTC ordered the RD to show cause why it should not be cited in contempt for failing to comply with the notice to comply (Order dated 09 October 2017).
- In the mandamus case, respondent filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition on 08 September 2017, alleging the LRA’s legal opinion closely intertwined with the case; petitioner opposed on grounds of forum shopping, asserting a similar specific performance case existed in another branch.
- Br. 76-RTC dismissed the mandamus case with prejudice on 18 October 2017 for forum shopping, finding respondent sought the same ultimate relief (title) in both proceedings and failed to disclose the pendency of the specific performance case in her certification against forum shopping.
- Respondent’s petition for certiorari in the CA (C.A.-G.R. No. 156169) assailing the dismissal was denied by the CA in a Decision dated 16 November 2018; her motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by CA Resolution dated 30 July 2019. A subsequent petition to this Court (G.R. No. 248747) was denied by the Third Division on 15 June 2020.
Petitioner’s CA Petition (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 150941) — Arguments
- Petitioner sought annulment of Br. 95-RTC’s Decision and the Writ of Execution, arguing:
- Grave abuse of discretion by Presiding Judge Edgardo B. Bellosillo in rendering judgment despite improper service of summons, violating petitioner’s right to due process.
- The sheriff failed to exercise due diligence in personal service; petitioner learned of the decision only on 12 May 2017.
- The writ of execution included reliefs beyond those prayed for or decreed, rendering the Decision and writ void.
- Petitioner raised additional defenses in supplemental pleadings: forum shopping by respondent, prescription/laches under Articl