Bases Conversion Dev. Authority v. Callangan
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over the ownership and tax declaration of parcels of land located within Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City. The lands in question are part of the Diplomatic and Consular Area (DCA), which was declared alienable and disposable and placed under the administration of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) by Presidential Proclamation No. 1725 in 2009. Respondents, Pedro S. Callangan, Jr. and Elizabeth Barba-Azares, claim ownership of these properties based on a 1976 deed of sale from the Vizcarra Spouses, who were the registered owners under TCT Nos. (39596) 164-2015001705 and (39597) 164-2015001704. Respondents sought to have tax declarations issued in favor of their predecessors-in-interest, alleging that BCDA's actions, including posting notices and cordoning off the property, prevented them from processing their ownership transfer. Procedural History: Respondents filed an amended complaint seeking recovery of possession, cancellation of existing tax declarations, and the issuance of new ones in favor of their predecessors-in-interest. They also sought damages against BCDA and the City Assessor of Taguig City. BCDA contested the claim, asserting that the properties are state-owned and part of the DCA, and that the respondents' titles and deed of sale are spurious. The City Assessor initially expressed hesitation due to overlapping claims and the need for diligence. Respondents then filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the City Assessor's duty to issue tax declarations is ministerial. The Regional Trial Court granted this motion, ordering the City Assessor to issue tax declarations. Both parties moved for reconsideration, which were denied. BCDA then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari directly with the Supreme Court. The Petition: BCDA filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the trial court's June 5, 2018 and July 27, 2018 Orders granting partial summary judgment. BCDA argues that the trial court committed reversible error by granting the motion, as genuine issues of fact regarding respondents' ownership and entitlement to a tax declaration exist. Specifically, BCDA contends that the properties are state property, that respondents' titles are questionable, and that the deed of sale is fictitious. BCDA asserts that the cancellation of its tax declaration cannot be resolved separately from the main issue of ownership. Respondents, in turn, argued that the petition was premature as the order was interlocutory and that certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy. The Supreme Court, while noting that certiorari under Rule 65 would have been the more appropriate remedy for an interlocutory order, decided to grant the petition in the interest of substantial justice, finding that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the partial summary judgment without resolving the genuine issues of ownership and entitlement.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner availed of the correct remedy. Whether there is a genuine issue raised in the proceedings below. Whether respondents are entitled by law to the issuance of a tax declaration in favor of their predecessors-in-interest. Whether petitioner BCDA is a real-party-in-interest to assail the partial summary judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversed, and set aside the June 5, 2018 and July 27, 2018 Orders of the Regional Trial Court. The Court found that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the partial summary judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the correct remedy: The Court clarified that while a partial summary judgment is interlocutory and generally cannot be appealed separately, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is available to assail it when grave abuse of discretion attended its issuance. This is because certiorari is a remedy for errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which may include the manifest disregard of basic rules and procedures. The Court excused BCDA's procedural defect in filing a Rule 45 petition instead of a Rule 65 petition in the interest of substantial justice, given the grave abuse of discretion committed by the trial court. On the existence of a genuine issue: The Court found that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding respondents' ownership of the subject properties. This was evidenced by the admitted overlap between the properties claimed by respondents and the DCA, the prior issuance of a tax declaration in favor of BCDA, the significant delay in declaring the property for taxation purposes by both the Vizcarra Spouses and respondents, the fact that it was the transferee (not the registered owners) requesting the tax declaration, and the multiple other claimants to portions of the DCA. The Court emphasized that ownership is intertwined with the entitlement to a tax declaration and cannot be isolated from it. On entitlement to a tax declaration: The Court ruled that respondents were not entitled by law to the issuance of a tax declaration based solely on the partial summary judgment. The requirements for a tax declaration on titled property include a certified true copy of a free patent, homestead, or miscellaneous sales application, a certified true copy of the title, and an approved survey plan. While respondents presented titles and a subdivision plan, it was not apparent if a free patent, homestead, or miscellaneous sales application was submitted, which is crucial for establishing that the land is alienable and disposable. The Court noted that Proclamation No. 1725, while subject to private rights, did not dispense with the respondents' burden to prove their title, especially when ownership was genuinely disputed. On BCDA's status as a real-party-in-interest: The Court found that BCDA was a real-party-in-interest. The partial summary judgment directly affected BCDA's claim and its existing tax declaration over the property. The Court also noted that the Manual on Real Property Appraisal and Assessment Operations provides for procedures when multiple assessments are made on the same property, indicating that the issuance of a new tax declaration would necessarily impact existing ones and require careful consideration of claims, thus involving BCDA's interest.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail a partial summary judgment when grave abuse of discretion attended its issuance, as it is an interlocutory order that does not finally dispose of the case. The issuance of a partial summary judgment is attended by grave abuse of discretion when genuine issues of ownership are apparent on the face of the pleadings and supporting documents, and it is evident that a movant is not entitled to its issuance by law.