FIRST
DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC OF THE Petitioner, -versus- CITY OF Respondent. |
G.R. No. 184879 Present: Chairperson VELASCO, JR., NACHURA,*
PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: February 23, 2011 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R
E S O L U T I O N
PEREZ,
J.:
The
subject of this petition for review on certiorari
is the writ of possession issued in favor of respondent City of
Petitioner
Republic of the Philippines (Republic) is represented in this suit by the
Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), which is the primary
policy, planning, programming, regulating and administrative entity of the
executive branch of the government in the promotion, development, and
regulation of dependable and coordinated networks of transportation and
communications systems, as well as in the fast, safe, efficient, and reliable
postal, transportation and communications services; while respondent City
Government of Mandaluyong is a local government unit tasked, among others, with
meeting the priority needs and service requirements of its constituents in
Mandaluyong City.[1]
The
material facts and events leading to this controversy are as follows:
On
On even date, Metro
Rail then assigned all its rights and obligations under the BLT Agreement to
Metro Rail Transit Corporation (MRTC), a domestic corporation.
In
an agreement dated
In
a joint resolution dated P32.75 Billion, and which will be
divided proportionately according to distance traversed among these cities.[6]
On
P5,974,365,000.00
and the assessed value at P4,779,492,000.00.[7] Subsequently on
The
computation of real property tax of MRTC was pegged at P317,250,730.23
from the taxable year 2000 until August 2001.[9] Two (2) years later or on August 2003,
another demand was made on MRTC placing the deficiency real estate tax due to the
City of P769,784,981.52.[10]
Initially,
a Notice of Delinquency dated P12,843,928.79,[11]
however the City Treasurer of Mandaluyong issued another Notice of Delinquency
on P1,306,617,522.96.[12]
On
the same date, the City Treasurer issued and served a Warrant of Levy upon MRTC
with the corresponding Notices of Levy upon the City Assessor and the Registrar
of Deeds of Mandaluyong City.[13]
On
MRTC
filed a complaint-in-intervention and sought to declare the nullity of the real
property tax assessments.
The posting and
publication of the Notice of Auction were made on
On
Consequently,
on P1,483,700,100.18.[17]
On
Meanwhile, respondent
manifested before the Court of Appeals that due to the failure of MRTC to
exercise the right of redemption, the City Treasurer of Mandaluyong executed a
Final Deed of Sale in favor of the purchaser in the auction sale. Subsequently, Tax Declaration No. D-013-06267
in MRTC’s name was cancelled and Tax Declaration No. D-013-10636 was issued in
its place.[18]
On
On
While MRTC appealed
said order to the Court of Appeals,
Finally,
In a Resolution dated
Respondent
filed its comment refuting the allegations of petitioner. Respondent does not contest petitioner’s
immunity from local taxes. In fact, it
has assessed MRTC, and not petitioner, for real property tax. Respondent defends the RTC’s issuance of a
writ of possession after it was established that there was a valid foreclosure
sale of MRTC’s properties for non-payment of real property taxes and after the
title had been consolidated in respondent’s name. Respondent also avers that the subject public
auction sale is an execution sale within the purview of Section 33, Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court, thus a writ of possession was validly issued. Respondent subscribes to this Court’s ruling
in Ong v. Court of Appeals[27]
which clarified that there is no forum shopping where a petition for the
issuance of a writ of possession is filed despite the pendency of an action for
annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale.[28]
This case is, ultimately,
between a local government’s power to tax and the national government’s privilege
of tax exemption. That issue needs full
hearing and deliberation, as indeed, the issue pends before the RTC, at first
instance. Such trial of facts and issues
must proceed. It should not be
pre-empted by the present petition that deals with precisely the herein
respondent’s intended end result.
A writ of possession is
a mere incident in the transfer of title.[29] In the instant case, it stemmed from the
exercise of alleged ownership by respondent over EDSA MRT III properties by
virtue of a tax delinquency sale. The
issue of whether the auction sale should be enjoined is still pending before
the Court of Appeals. Pending
determination, it is premature for respondent to have conducted the auction
sale and caused the transfer of title over the real properties to its
name. The denial by the RTC to issue an
injunction or TRO does not automatically give respondent the liberty to proceed
with the actions sought to be enjoined, especially so in this case where a certiorari petition assailing the denial
is still being deliberated in the Court of Appeals. All the more it is premature for the RTC to
issue a writ of possession where the ownership of the subject properties is
derived from an auction sale, the validity of which is still being threshed out
in the Court of Appeals. The RTC should
have held in abeyance the issuance of a writ of possession. At this juncture, the writ issued is
premature and has no force and effect.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Order dated
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of
the Constitution, 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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
* Per Special Order No. 947, Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura is hereby designated as additional member in place of Associate
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro who is on official leave.
[1] Petition
for Review on Certiorari. Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[2] LRTS
Phase I means the rail transport system comprising about 16.9 line kilometers
extending from Taft Avenue, Pasay City, to North Avenue, Quezon City, occupying
a strip in the center of EDSA approximately 10.5 meters wide (approximately 12
meters wide at or around the Boni Avenue, Santolan and Buendia Stations), plus
about 0.1 to 0.2 line kilometers extending from the North Avenue Station to the
Depot, together with the Stations, 73 Light Rail Vehicles and all ancillary
plant, equipment and facilities, as more particularly detailed in the
specifications. See BLT Agreement. Rollo,
p. 67.
[3] Revenue
Period means the period commencing on the Completion Date and ending on the
twenty-fifth anniversary thereof, unless earlier terminated pursuant
hereto.
[4]
[5]
[6] Resolution
Adopting a Common Approach in Determining the Current and Fair Market Value of
Rail Transport System (LRTS Phase I) Also Known as EDSA MRT III Extending from
North Avenue, Quezon City, to Taft Avenue, Pasay City.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Complaint
in Civil Case No. MC05-2882.
[15]
[16]
[17] Petition
for Review on Certiorari.
[18]
[19]
[20] Opposition.
[21]
[22]
[23] Petition
for Review on Certiorari.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] 388 Phil. 857 (2000).
[28] Comment.
[29] See
Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corporation v.
Spouses De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 182136-37, 29 August 2008, 563 SCRA 737, 751.