Heirs of Avila v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1939, Lots 594 and 828 were adjudicated to Paz Chavez by the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. Due to non-payment of taxes on Lot 594, it was offered for public auction. Marciana G. Avila, a public school teacher, won the bidding and was issued a final bill of sale. Section 579 of the Revised Administrative Code prohibits public school teachers from buying delinquent properties. In 1947, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) Nos. 100 and 101 were issued to Paz Chavez. Private respondents filed a petition for review of the decrees. Procedural History: The cadastral court set aside the adjudication to Paz Chavez and declared null and void the decrees and titles, adjudicating Lot 594 to the heirs of Marciana G. Avila and Lot 828 to Leonardo Avila, Sr. Paz Chavez appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 38129-R), which modified the decision by disallowing the registration of Lot 594 in the name of Marciana G. Avila, citing the prohibition in Section 579 of the Revised Administrative Code, but affirmed the decision in all other respects. Upon remand, Avila moved for execution and a writ of possession, which was opposed by private respondent Aladino Ch. Bacarrisas, who claimed physical possession of Lot 594 since 1946. The Court of Appeals (CA-SP-05598) granted certiorari and set aside the order for execution, holding that the Avilas had no legal basis for a writ of possession as they had not secured a decree or a judgment of confirmation of title for Lot 594, and that the writ of execution was improvidently issued. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The Heirs of Marciana G. Avila filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision that set aside the writ of execution and denied them possession of Lot 594.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in virtually modifying its previous decision by disallowing both the registration and adjudication of Lot 594 in favor of the petitioners. Whether the petitioners are entitled to possession of Lot 594 despite the disallowance of its registration in their name. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that private respondent correctly chose the remedy of certiorari.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the October 6, 1976 Decision of the Court of Appeals, setting aside the writ of execution and denying possession of Lot 594 to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of registration and adjudication: The Court clarified that the previous decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 38129-R, while affirming the adjudication of Lot 594 to the Avilas, explicitly disallowed its registration in their name due to the violation of Section 579 of the Revised Administrative Code. This prohibition renders the sale to Marciana G. Avila void ab initio. A void contract is inexistent from the beginning and cannot be ratified, nor can the right to set up the defense of its illegality be waived. Therefore, the petitioners' claim that the adjudication was affirmed while registration was disallowed is a distinction without legal consequence in this context, as the underlying transaction was fundamentally flawed. On the entitlement to possession: The Court held that possession cannot be claimed by the petitioners because their predecessor-in-interest, Marciana Avila, was a party to an illegal transaction and was not the successful claimant in the registration proceedings. The Court reiterated that a judgment confirming title and ordering registration necessarily carries with it the delivery of possession, which is an inherent element of ownership. Since Avila had not secured a decree nor a judgment of confirmation of title over Lot 594, there was no legal basis for the issuance of a writ of execution or possession in her favor or in favor of her heirs. The Court noted that the government, which has the ultimate proprietary interest in land, did not file any claim for possession. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court affirmed that certiorari was the proper remedy. It has been ruled that certiorari is proper where the trial court has issued a writ of execution of a questioned judgment, and the issuance itself is a question of law. In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly found that the writ of execution for Lot 594 was improvidently issued, as there was no legal basis for it. The appellate court's action in setting aside the writ was therefore justified, as it corrected a grave abuse of discretion or an arbitrary exercise of judicial power by the lower court in ordering the execution of a judgment that lacked legal foundation.
Main Doctrine
A purchase of property sold by the government for non-payment of taxes by a government official or employee is void ab initio, and such a void contract cannot be the basis for claiming ownership or possession, nor can the illegality be waived.