Tagumpay Realty v. Empire East Land Holdings
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: A condominium unit with parking, registered under the name of Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. (Empire East), was sold at a public auction of tax delinquent properties. Tagumpay Realty Corporation (Tagumpay Realty) emerged as the highest bidder, and after the redemption period expired without Empire East exercising its right to redeem, title was consolidated in favor of Tagumpay Realty. Consequently, Tagumpay Realty became entitled to a new Condominium Certificate of Title (CCT) in its name. However, Empire East failed to surrender the duplicate copy of its CCT. 2. Procedural History: Tagumpay Realty filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the surrender of the owner's duplicate CCT, or in case of refusal, for its cancellation and the issuance of a new title. The RTC initially granted the petition, directing Empire East to surrender the duplicate CCT. Subsequently, the RTC referred the case for mediation and later denied Tagumpay Realty's motion for reconsideration, ruling that the proceedings and the initial order were null and void due to non-joinder of issues. The RTC then directed Tagumpay Realty to show cause why its petition should not be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 108 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529. Ultimately, the RTC dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the second paragraph of Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's dismissal, finding no grave abuse of discretion. Tagumpay Realty then filed the present petition for review on certiorari. 3. The Petition: Tagumpay Realty filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the CA's decision and resolution. Tagumpay Realty argues that the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion against the RTC. The core of Tagumpay Realty's argument is that its original petition was governed by Section 75 in relation to Section 107 of P.D. No. 1529, which pertains to the surrender of a withheld duplicate certificate of title due to a transfer of ownership, and not Section 108, which deals with amendments or alterations of certificates. Furthermore, Tagumpay Realty contends that the issue of improper venue, which the RTC used as a ground for dismissal, was deemed waived by Empire East for failing to raise it as an affirmative defense in its answer.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion against the RTC when it ordered the dismissal of the Petition for its failure to comply with the second paragraph of Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. Whether Tagumpay Realty's petition was governed by Section 107 or Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. Whether Empire East waived its right to question the venue of the filing of Tagumpay Realty's petition.
Ruling
The Petition is granted. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are reversed. The Orders of the Regional Trial Court are annulled. The case is remanded to the RTC for reinstatement and reception of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion against the RTC: The Court found no error in the CA's conclusion that the RTC was not guilty of grave abuse of discretion. While the RTC erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of improper venue, this error was an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a remedy to cure errors of judgment, especially those involving the appreciation of evidence or conclusions of law. The RTC acted within its jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition, even if its reasoning was flawed due to the waiver of the venue defense by Empire East. The CA correctly noted that the dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Tagumpay Realty to refile the petition in compliance with the requirements. However, the Supreme Court's ultimate ruling was to reverse the CA and RTC decisions, remanding the case for further proceedings, based on the substantive findings regarding the applicable law and the waiver of venue. On whether Tagumpay Realty's petition was governed by Section 107 or Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529: The Court held that Tagumpay Realty's petition was governed by Section 107, not Section 108, of P.D. No. 1529. Section 107 provides a remedy for the surrender of a duplicate certificate of title when it is necessary to issue a new certificate due to an involuntary instrument or when a voluntary instrument cannot be registered due to the refusal to surrender the duplicate. This section applies when a party seeks to enforce an ownership right to have the certificate of title registered. In contrast, Section 108 provides a remedy for nominal or insubstantial changes in the certificate of title without a change in ownership, such as the termination of registered interests, creation of new interests, or correction of errors. Tagumpay Realty's petition clearly sought the surrender of the owner's duplicate of CCT No. 5903-R to transfer the registration of the subject property in its name, which falls under the purview of Section 107. The Court emphasized that Section 108 is for summary proceedings contemplating clerical mistakes, not controversial issues involving a change of ownership. On whether Empire East waived its right to question the venue of the filing of Tagumpay Realty's petition: The Court ruled that the dismissal of Tagumpay Realty's petition by the RTC was misplaced because Empire East waived its right to question the venue. The rule in the second paragraph of Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, which requires post-registration proceedings to be filed in the original registration case, refers to the venue for such actions, including petitions under Section 107. This rule is intended to prevent confusion and facilitate tracing the origin of registry entries. However, failure to raise improper venue as an affirmative defense in the answer constitutes a waiver thereof under Rule 8, Section 12(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Since Empire East did not raise improper venue as an affirmative defense, it waived this right.
Main Doctrine
A petition for the surrender of an owner's duplicate certificate of title under Section 107 of P.D. No. 1529 is distinct from a petition for amendment or alteration of a certificate of title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. The venue requirement under the second paragraph of Section 108, which mandates filing in the original registration case, applies to petitions under Section 108, not Section 107. Failure to raise improper venue as an affirmative defense constitutes a waiver thereof.