Titan Dragon Properties v. Veloso-Galenzoga
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a 70,364-square meter parcel of land registered in the name of Titan Dragon Properties Corporation (petitioner corporation). Petitioner corporation, through its then President Antonio L. Yao, allegedly sold this property to respondent Marlina Veloso-Galenzoga for Sixty Million Pesos (Php60,000,000.00) via a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on December 8, 1997. The Deed stipulated that petitioner corporation would shoulder the capital gains tax (CGT) and documentary stamp tax (DST), while respondent would pay the transfer tax and registration fee. Respondent claimed to have paid real property taxes since 1997, but petitioner corporation failed to deliver possession of the property and pay the stipulated taxes. After repeated demands, respondent filed a Complaint for specific performance to compel petitioner corporation to fulfill its obligations. 2. Procedural History: Respondent filed a Complaint for specific performance with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 95 (Br. 95-RTC). Concurrently, respondent filed a Petition for Mandamus with RTC, Branch 76 (Br. 76-RTC), seeking to annul derivative titles issued in petitioner corporation's name and reinstate the original title, alleging fraud. Summons in the specific performance case was attempted at petitioner corporation's registered address but proved unsuccessful, leading to a motion for substituted service by publication, which was granted. In the mandamus case, summons was served, and petitioner corporation was declared in default, leading to a decision in favor of respondent. Petitioner corporation moved for reconsideration in the mandamus case, arguing improper summons service, and Br. 76-RTC granted the motion, setting aside the decision and ordering new summons. Meanwhile, petitioner corporation was declared in default in the specific performance case, and Br. 95-RTC rendered a decision ordering petitioner corporation to pay CGT and DST and deliver possession. Respondent later filed an Omnibus Motion seeking cancellation of derivative titles and issuance of a new title in her name, which was partly granted. A Writ of Execution was issued, prompting the Register of Deeds to seek guidance due to the conflict with the Torrens system. The Land Registration Authority issued a legal opinion favoring compliance. Petitioner corporation then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the decision and writ of execution in the specific performance case, arguing grave abuse of discretion due to improper summons service and expansion of the writ. The CA dismissed the petition, deeming it the wrong remedy and affirming the RTC's decision. Petitioner corporation's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA Special Division. 3. The Petition: Petitioner corporation filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. Petitioner corporation argues that the CA erred in dismissing its petition for certiorari and in affirming the RTC's decision and writ of execution. The core arguments are: (1) the impropriety of the CA's dismissal of the Rule 65 petition, asserting that certiorari was a proper remedy to assail a void judgment tainted with grave abuse of discretion; (2) the invalidity of the service of summons by publication in the specific performance case, contending that the sheriff failed to exert diligent efforts to ascertain petitioner corporation's whereabouts and that the requisites for service by publication were not met, thus Br. 95-RTC never acquired jurisdiction over its person; and (3) the void nature of the writ of execution, which allegedly expanded the scope of the original decision by including reliefs not prayed for in the complaint, thereby violating due process. Petitioner corporation seeks to have the RTC decision and all subsequent issuances declared null and void and the case remanded for proper proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari on the ground that it was the wrong mode of appeal. Whether the service of summons by publication in the specific performance case was valid. Whether the Writ of Execution issued in the specific performance case improperly expanded the scope of the Decision dated October 21, 2016.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution. The Decision dated October 21, 2016, of Branch 95, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, and all issuances pursuant thereto, were declared NULL and VOID. The case was REMANDED to the RTC for further proceedings, with the mandate to issue anew the required summons to petitioner and proceed with the trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy (Rule 65 vs. Rule 47): The Court held that while a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is generally the remedy for void judgments due to lack of jurisdiction over the person, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is also proper when the tribunal's action is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, petitioner alleged not only lack of jurisdiction due to invalid service of summons but also grave abuse of discretion by the RTC judge in disregarding procedural rules and expanding the writ of execution. The Court emphasized that a holistic approach is favored to serve the interest of justice, and that procedural norms may be brushed aside in the higher interests of justice and equity, citing jurisprudence that allowed certiorari petitions to challenge judgments issued without valid service of summons. On the validity of the service of summons by publication: The Court found the service of summons by publication to be invalid. It reiterated that personal service is the preferred mode, and service by publication requires prior diligent efforts to ascertain the defendant's whereabouts, including at least three attempts on at least two different dates, and proof that these modes were ineffective. The Sheriff's Return in this case showed only two attempts at the same address, with no indication of diligent inquiry with building personnel for alternative addresses or attempts at substituted service. The Court noted that the sheriff fell short of his duty to be resourceful, persevering, canny, and diligent, and that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty does not apply to patently defective returns. The Court stressed the importance of strict compliance with rules on service by publication to ensure due process. On the expansion of the writ of execution: The Court found that the writ of execution improperly expanded the scope of the decision it sought to enforce. The original complaint for specific performance only prayed for petitioner to pay CGT and DST and deliver possession. However, the writ of execution, by incorporating the subsequent Order dated December 13, 2016, directed the cancellation of petitioner's derivative titles and the issuance of a new title in respondent's name, which were reliefs not prayed for in the complaint nor included in the original decision. The Court stated that a writ of execution must substantially conform to the judgment and cannot go beyond its terms, as doing so would be a blatant disregard of procedural rules and a deprivation of property without due process.
Main Doctrine
A judgment rendered without valid service of summons is void for lack of jurisdiction over the person, and all proceedings and issuances pursuant thereto, including a writ of execution, are likewise void. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy to assail such void judgment and issuances, even if the ground is lack of jurisdiction over the person, especially when grave abuse of discretion is also alleged.