Eastern Heights Investments and Development Corporation v. Tagumpay Realty Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a property located in Barrio Dolores, Taytay, Rizal, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 285425 in the name of Eastern Heights Investments and Development Corporation (petitioner). Tagumpay Realty Corporation (respondent) purchased this property in a tax delinquency sale after emerging as the highest bidder. Following the lapse of the redemption period, a deed of conveyance was issued to respondent. However, petitioner failed to surrender its owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 285425 to the Register of Deeds, prompting respondent to initiate legal action. Procedural History: Respondent filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 98, seeking the surrender and/or cancellation of the duplicate title and the issuance of a new title in its name. Petitioner initially responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing misidentification of the party and lack of proper notice regarding the tax sale. The RTC allowed respondent to amend the petition to correctly implead petitioner. Despite petitioner's opposition and subsequent motion for reconsideration, the RTC denied it. Petitioner's counsel attended initial hearings, but later failed to appear, leading the RTC to allow respondent to present its case ex-parte. The RTC granted the petition, ordering the surrender and cancellation of the duplicate title and the issuance of a new one to respondent. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, finding no reversible error, and subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The petition raises three main issues: (a) whether the CA erred in ruling that the amendment of the petition to correct the party's name was proper; (b) whether the CA erred in ruling that the RTC had jurisdiction over the case, particularly concerning petitioner's voluntary appearance despite initial claims of lack of summons; and (c) whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner could not challenge the validity of the tax sale without first complying with the deposit requirement under Section 267 of Republic Act No. 7160.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the amendment of the petition was proper. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner cannot challenge the validity of the tax sale without complying with Section 267 of RA 7160 on the required deposit.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the amendment: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the amendment of the petition to correct the name of the petitioner from "Eastern Heights Investments" to "Eastern Heights Investments and Development Corporation" was proper. The Court found that the amendment was merely formal, intended to correct a clerical or typographical error, as evidenced by the attached documents like the TCT, tax declaration, certificate of sale, and deed of conveyance, all bearing the correct name of the petitioner. Furthermore, at the time of the amendment, no responsive pleading had been filed by the petitioner, allowing for amendment as a matter of right under Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. On the RTC's jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner: The Court held that the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. While the initial filing of a "Voluntary Special Appearance and Urgent Motion to Dismiss" which included grounds other than lack of jurisdiction did not, under the old rules, constitute voluntary appearance, the petitioner's subsequent actions demonstrated a clear submission to the court's jurisdiction. Petitioner's counsel actively participated in the proceedings, attended hearings (even if ex-parte presentation of evidence), filed a motion for reconsideration, a notice of appeal, and an appellant's brief before the CA. This consistent participation was deemed tantamount to a voluntary appearance, curing any defect in the service of summons and establishing the court's jurisdiction over its person. On the challenge to the validity of the tax sale: The Court sustained the CA's ruling that petitioner could not validly challenge the tax delinquency sale due to non-compliance with Section 267 of RA 7160. This provision requires a deposit of the amount for which the property was sold, plus interest, as a jurisdictional prerequisite for assailing the validity of a tax sale. Petitioner's failure to make this deposit meant that its opposition to the petition could not be heard, and the tax delinquency sale remained valid and legally binding. Consequently, the surrender of the duplicate title, its cancellation, and the issuance of a new title to the respondent were deemed proper.
Main Doctrine
A party's voluntary appearance in court, even if initially through a motion to dismiss that includes grounds other than lack of jurisdiction, can be considered as submission to the court's jurisdiction, especially when coupled with subsequent active participation in the proceedings. Furthermore, the validity of a tax delinquency sale cannot be assailed without complying with the jurisdictional requirement of depositing the amount of the sale plus interest, as mandated by Section 267 of RA 7160.