ANICIA
VALDEZ-TALLORIN, G.R. No. 177429
Petitioner,
Present:
Carpio, J., Chairperson,
- versus - Leonardo-De Castro,
Brion,
Del Castillo, and
Abad, JJ.
HEIRS OF JUANITO TARONA,
Represented by CARLOS TARONA,
ROGELIO TARONA and Promulgated:
Respondents. November 24, 2009
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD,
J.:
This case is about a court’s
annulment of a tax declaration in the names of three persons, two of whom had
not been impleaded in the case, for the reason that the document was illegally
issued to them.
The
Facts and the Case
On
February 9, 1998 respondents Carlos, Rogelio, and Lourdes Tarona (the Taronas) filed
an action before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga,
The Taronas alleged in their
complaint that, unknown to them, in 1981, the Assessor’s Office of Morong in
Bataan cancelled Tax Declaration 463 in the name of their father, Juanito
Tarona (Juanito), covering 6,186 square meters of land in Morong,
The Taronas further alleged that,
without their father’s affidavit on file, it followed that his tax declaration
had been illegally cancelled and a new one illegally issued in favor of
Tallorin and the others with her. The
unexplained disappearance of the affidavit from official files, the Taronas
concluded, covered-up the falsification or forgery that caused the substitution.[3] The Taronas asked the RTC to annul Tax
Declaration 6164, reinstate Tax Declaration 463, and issue a new one in the
name of Juanito’s heirs.
On March 6, 1998 the Taronas
filed a motion to declare petitioner Tallorin in default for failing to answer
their complaint within the allowed time.[4] But, before the RTC could act on the motion,
Tallorin filed a belated answer, alleging among others that she held a copy of
the supposedly missing affidavit of Juanito who was merely an agricultural
tenant of the land covered by Tax Declaration 463. He surrendered and waived in that affidavit his
occupation and tenancy rights to Tallorin and the others in consideration of P29,240.00. Tallorin also put up the affirmative defenses
of non-compliance with the requirement of conciliation proceedings and
prescription.
On March 12, 1998 the RTC set
Tallorin’s affirmative defenses for hearing[5] but
the Taronas sought reconsideration, pointing out that the trial court should have
instead declared Tallorin in default based on their earlier motion.[6] On June 2, 1998 the RTC denied the Taronas’ motion
for reconsideration[7] for the
reasons that it received Tallorin’s answer before it could issue a default
order and that the Taronas failed to show proof that Tallorin was notified of
the motion three days before the scheduled hearing. Although the presiding judge inhibited
himself from the case on motion of the Taronas, the new judge to whom the case
was re-raffled stood by his predecessor’s previous orders.
By a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals
(CA),[8] however,
the Taronas succeeded in getting the latter court to annul the RTC’s March 12
and June 2, 1998 orders.[9] The CA ruled that the RTC gravely abused its discretion
in admitting Tallorin’s late answer in the absence of a motion to admit it. Even if petitioner Tallorin had already filed
her late answer, said the CA, the RTC should have heard the Taronas’ motion to
declare Tallorin in default.
Upon
remand of the case, the RTC heard the Taronas’ motion to declare Tallorin in
default,[10] granted
the same, and directed the Taronas to present evidence ex parte.[11]
On January 30, 2002 the RTC
rendered judgment, a) annulling the tax declaration in the names of Tallorin,
Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez, and Dolores Valdez; b) reinstating the tax
declaration in the name of Juanito; and c) ordering the issuance in its place of
a new tax declaration in the names of Juanito’s heirs. The trial court also ruled that Juanito’s
affidavit authorizing the transfer of the tax declaration had no binding force
since he did not sign it.
Tallorin
appealed the above decision to the CA,[12]
pointing out 1) that the land covered
by the tax declaration in question was titled in her name and in those of her
two co-owners; 2) that Juanito’s affidavit
only dealt with the surrender of his tenancy rights and did not serve as basis
for canceling Tax Declaration 463 in his name; 3) that, although Juanito did not sign the affidavit, he
thumbmarked and acknowledged the same before a notary public; and 4) that the trial court erred in not
dismissing the complaint for failure to implead Margarita Pastelero Vda. de
Valdez and Dolores Valdez who were indispensable parties in the action to annul
Juanito’s affidavit and the tax declaration in their favor.[13]
On May 22, 2006 the CA rendered
judgment, affirming the trial court’s decision.[14] The CA rejected all of Tallorin’s arguments. Since she did not assign as error the order
declaring her in default and since she took no part at the trial, the CA pointed
out that her claims were in effect mere conjectures, not based on evidence of
record.[15] Notably, the CA did not address the issue Tallorin
raised regarding the Taronas’ failure to implead Margarita Pastelero Vda. de
Valdez and Dolores Valdez as indispensable party-defendants, their interest in
the cancelled tax declarations having been affected by the RTC judgment.
Questions
Presented
The
petition presents the following questions for resolution by this Court:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in failing to
dismiss the Taronas’ complaint for not impleading Margarita Pastelero Vda. de
Valdez and Dolores Valdez in whose names, like their co-owner Tallorin, the
annulled tax declaration had been issued;
2. Whether or not the CA erred in not ruling
that the Taronas’ complaint was barred by prescription; and
3. Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the
RTC’s finding that Juanito’s affidavit had no legal effect because it was unsigned;
when at the hearing of the motion to declare Tallorin in default, it was shown that
the affidavit bore Juanito’s thumbmark.
The
Court’s Rulings
The
first question, whether or not the CA erred in failing to dismiss the Taronas’
complaint for not impleading Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and Dolores
Valdez in whose names, like their co-owner Tallorin, the annulled tax
declaration had been issued, is a telling question.
The rules mandate the joinder of
indispensable parties. Thus:
Sec. 7. Compulsory
joinder of indispensable parties. – Parties in interest without whom no
final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as
plaintiffs and defendants.[16]
Indispensable
parties are those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree
would necessarily affect their rights, so that the courts cannot proceed
without their presence.[17] Joining indispensable parties into an action is
mandatory, being a requirement of due process.
Without their presence, the judgment of the court cannot attain real
finality.
Judgments do not bind strangers
to the suit. The absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and
void. Indeed, it would have no authority
to act, not only as to the absent party, but as to those present as well. And where does the responsibility for impleading
all indispensable parties lie? It lies
in the plaintiff.[18]
Here,
the Taronas sought the annulment of the tax declaration in the names of defendant
Tallorin and two others, namely, Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and Dolores
Valdez and, in its place, the reinstatement of the previous declaration in
their father Juanito’s name. Further,
the Taronas sought to strike down as void the affidavit in which Juanito renounced
his tenancy right in favor of the same three persons. It is inevitable that any decision granting
what the Taronas wanted would necessarily affect the rights of such persons to
the property covered by the tax declaration.
The Court cannot discount the importance
of tax declarations to the persons in whose names they are issued. Their cancellation adversely affects the
rights and interests of such persons over the properties that the documents cover. The reason is simple: a tax declaration is a primary
evidence, if not the source, of the right to claim title of ownership over real
property, a right enforceable against another person. The Court held in Uriarte v. People[19] that, although not conclusive, a tax
declaration is a telling evidence of the declarant’s possession which could
ripen into ownership.
In Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals,[20] the
Court said that no one in his right mind would pay taxes for a property that he
did not have in his possession. This honest
sense of obligation proves that the holder claims title over the property
against the State and other persons, putting them on notice that he would
eventually seek the issuance of a certificate of title in his name. Further, the tax declaration expresses his
intent to contribute needed revenues to the Government, a circumstance that strengthens
his bona fide claim to ownership.[21]
Here, the RTC and the CA annulled
Tax Declaration 6164 that belonged not only to defendant Tallorin but also to Margarita
Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and Dolores Valdez, which two persons had no
opportunity to be heard as they were never impleaded. The RTC and the CA had no authority to annul
that tax declaration without seeing to it that all three persons were impleaded
in the case.
But the Taronas’ action cannot be
dismissed outright. As the Court held in
Plasabas v. Court of Appeals,[22]
the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal. Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non-joinder or
misjoinder of parties and allows the amendment of the complaint at any stage of
the proceedings, through motion or on order of the court on its own initiative. Only if plaintiff refuses to implead an
indispensable party, despite the order of the court, may it dismiss the action.
There
is a need, therefore, to remand the case to the RTC with an order to implead
Margarita Pastelero Vda. de Valdez and Dolores Valdez as defendants so they
may, if they so desire, be heard.
In
view of the Court’s resolution of the first question, it would serve no purpose
to consider the other questions that the petition presents. The resolution of those questions seems to
depend on the complete evidence in the case. This will not yet happen until all
the indispensable party-defendants are impleaded and heard on their evidence.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Balanga,
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D. BRION
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
In Civil Case 6739.
[2]
In Morong,
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
In CA-G.R. SP 50096.
[9]
Records, pp. 149-156.
[10]
[11]
[12]
In CA-G.R. CV 74762.
[13]
CA rollo, pp. 27-42.
[14]
[15]
[16]
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 3, Sec. 7.
[17] Quilatan
v. Heirs of Quilatan, G.R. No. 183059, August 28, 2009.
[18]
Moldes v. Villanueva, G.R. No.
161955, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 697, 708; Domingo
v. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235, 265 (2004).
[19]
G.R. No. 169251, December 20,
2006, 511 SCRA 471, 491.
[20]
367 Phil. 597, 604 (1999).
[21]
Also in Republic v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil.
238, 248 (1996); see also Heirs of Severo
Legaspi, Sr. v. Vda. de Dayot, G.R. No. 83904,
August 13, 1990, 188 SCRA 508, 517.
[22]
G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 686.