Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

FIFTH DIVISION
* * * * *

MILAGROS DELFIN-REYES, CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073

JESUS DELFIN, Ma. JULIA
DELFIN-MANINGAT, Members:
MARINA ANTONIETTA
DELFIN-DIZON, JOSEFINA VILLARAMA, JR.,
DELFIN-IMPERIAL, and Chairman
MARCELITA DELFIN- TI]AM, and
BACANI, VILLON, S.E., 11.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

-versus- Promulgated:

HEIRS OF EWILDA VICTA

and JOSEPH CACHA,
Defendants-Appellees. AU6 2 3 2117

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--~~~~[~!~---x

DECISION

TI]AM, I.
This is an Appeal! from the Decision,2 dated September 10,
2003, of the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, in
Civil Case No. TG-2046, dismissing Plaintiffs-Appellants'j-

I Rollo, pp. 16-41.

2 Rollo, Annex H, pp.43-49.

41
CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073 2
DECISION

complaint for lack of cause of action. The dispositive portion of

said Decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is

hereby rendered finding the complaint of plaintiffs to be lacking
in cause of action as a consequence of which the same is hereby
dismissed. Defendants' counterclaims are also dismissed. No
pronouncement as to the costs.

SO ORDERED."

The facts of the case are as follows:

Plaintiffs-appellants are the former registered owners of

5,040 square meters parcel of land (subject lot) situated in
Kaybagal Tagaytay City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-8096.3 In their Complaint, Plaintiffs-appellants
claimed that they are in actual possession of the subject lot from
the time the property was acquired by their parents up to the
present. Sometime in October 1997, the subject lot was levied
upon and auctioned off by the City Government of Tagaytay
(City) for tax delinquency of P26,000.00 without notice to
Plaintiffs-appellants. In said auction sale, the subject lot with a
fair market value of P25,000,000.00 was awarded to Defendant-
appellant Ewilda Victa (Ewilda Victa) as the lone bidder in the
amount of P26,000.00.

Plaintiffs-appellants alleged that the tax levy and the public

auction sale were made through fraud, machination and false
manifestation because the notices in said proceedings were sent to
a fictitious and non-existing address, at 21 Merville St., White
Plains Subdivision, Quezon City, purportedly to one of the J"

3 Records, Annex A, p. 7.

d?
CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073 3
DECISION

Plaintiffs-appellant, Milagros Delfin-Reyes (Milagros), To dispute

receipt of the notice, Plaintiffs-appellants presented a certification"
from Felipe R. Yu, General Manager of the White Plains
Homeowners Association, Inc. stating that there was no such
address in the said subdivision. Plaintiffs-appellants contended
that their true and correct addresses are clearly inscribed on the
face of TCT No. T-8096, which are 4-G St. Paul St., Cubao, Quezon
City and 112 N. Domingo St., Cubao, Quezon City.

Plaintiffs-appellants claimed that the City Treasurer of

Tagaytay City (Treasurer) did not send the notices to either one of
the addresses inscribed in TCT No. 8096. Plaintiffs-appellants
presented a copy of Tax Declaration No. 98-00838615 covering the
subject property which indicated the correct address, 4G St. Paul
St., Cubao, Quezon City, allegedly sent by the Treasurer and was
received by the Plaintiffs-appellants after the title of the subject lot
was transferred in the name of Ewilda Victa.

After the expiration of the redemption period, on April 7,

1999, Defendant-appellee Ewilda filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Tagaytay, Branch 18 (RTC), a petition" for application and
issuance of a new title pursuant to Section 75 of Presidential
Decree No.1529. Ewilda Victa also filed a motion/ praying that
Plaintiffs-appellants produce and surrender the owners' duplicate
copy of TCT No. T-8096 and that the Register of Deeds of
Tagaytay City cancel the owner's duplicate title of the subject lot
and issue a new one in her favor. The notice of hearing" of the
said motion stated that a copy of the motion was served
personally upon the Plaintiff-appellant Milagros Delfin-Reyes at.-
4 Records, p. 178.
5 Records, Annex C, pp. 10.
6 L.R.C. Case No. TG-589, Records, pp. 12-14.
7 Records, pp. 15-17.
a Records, Annex F-1, p. 17.

43
CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073 4
DECISION

21 Merville St., White Plains, Quezon City, with an annotation

"notified 6-14-99,received by Ms. Canavaral but refused to sign."

On July 19, 1999, TCT No. T-387019 was issued in the name
of Ewilda Victa. Thereafter, Ewilda Victa mortgaged 10 the subject
lot to Defendant-appellee Joseph Cacha (Joseph Cacha) in the
amount of P600,OOO.OO.

Plaintiffs-appellants prayed that Victa's title be cancelled

and title to the property be reconveyed to them.

In her Answer, Ewilda Victa claimed that she acquired the

subject lot in a public auction sale conducted by the City on
October 1, 1997 and the Notice of Sale of Delinquent Real Property
was published in Pilipino Star Ngayon newspaper on September
12, 19 and 26, 1997.11 Her bid won in the public auction sale as
shown by a Certificate of Sale12awarded to her. One year from
the date of the auction sale, the Treasurer issued a Final Bill of
Sale,13dated October 27, 1998. She filed a petition before the RTC
for the issuance of a new title over the subject lot, which petition
was granted.

Ewilda Victa claimed that the City and its officers who
conducted the auction sale were not impleaded as indispensable
parties pursuant to Section 7, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. Ewilda Victa argued that her acquisition of the subject
lot was regular because the Plaintiffs-appellants did not question
the validity of the auction sale. J,

9 Records, p. 58.
10 Records, Annex B, pp. 8-9.
II Records, pp. 53-55.
12 Records, p. 56.
IJ Records, p. 57.

44
CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073 5
DECISION

Ewilda Victa denied that Plaintiffs-appellants were not

notified of the auction sale and of the petition for application of
new title. She argued that it was only in 1998, which was after the
public auction sale that Plaintiffs-appellants changed their
common address into 4-G St. Paul St., Cubao, Quezon City. The
tax declarations" prior to 1998 indicated 21 Merville St., White
Plains, Quezon City as the address of Plaintiff-appellant Milagros.

On January 8, 2001,]5Defendant-appellee Joseph Cacha was

declared in default for failure to attend the pre-trial conference
despite due notice. Subsequently, Ewilda Victa died and was
substituted by her heirs as evidenced by an Order," dated April
23,2001.

On September 10, 2003, the RTC rendered a decision

dismissing Plaintiffs-appellants' complaint for lack of cause of
action because Defendants-appellees acquired the subject lot in
good faith and for value in a public auction sale. The RTC ruled
that Plaintiffs-appellants' complaint should be filed against the
City, as vendor from whom the Defendants-appellees derived
their rights over the subject lot. It ruled that the Defendants-
appellees have shown by clear and convincing evidence that the
late Ewilda Victa acquired the subject lot free from irregularity
and without malicious motive. It found that Ewilda Victa came to
know about the subject lot because of the notice of sale published
in Pilipino Ngayon newspaper. The subsequent issuance of the
certificate of sale over said delinquent property after Ewilda Victa
bought the same; and the issuance of a Final Bill of Sale by the
Treasurer 1 year after the expiration of the redemption period l-

14 Records, pp. 204-208.

IS Records, p. 84.
16 Records, p. 96.

45
CA-G.R. CVNO. 82073 6
DECISION

negated any allegation of ill motive or scheme on the part of

Ewilda Victa.

The RTC ruled that Ewilda Victa's subsequent filing of the

petition for issuance of new certificate of title after the
confirmation of sale in her favor was valid and regular as it was
only proper for the title to be transferred in her name. The filing of
the petition before the RTC was done pursuant to, and in strict
compliance with the requirements of the Property Registration
Decree (P.D. 1529). The RTC ruled that Plaintiffs-appellants' claim;
that the notices for the motion for the production and surrender of
the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-8096 was not only sent to
the wrong address but also made to appear that it was received by
the Plaintiff-appellant Milagros; was bereft of merit because the
previous tax declarations covering the subject lot consistently
indicated 21 Merville, White Plains, Quezon City as the address
until it was belatedly changed by the Plaintiffs-appellants. Thus,
Defendants-appellees gave the correct address in her motion for
production of and surrender of TCT No. T-8096.

The RTC found that Plaintiffs-appellants failed to present

evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity on the part of
the City in conducting the auction sale. The RTC found that the
Plaintiffs-appellants' witness Felipe Yu merely stated that there
was no existing address of 21 Merville, White Plains, Quezon
City. Plaintiffs-appellants' other witness Julieta Maningat could
not even answer on cross-examination as to why they were not
paying realty taxes for several years and only justified that they
were given the run around by city hall.

Aggrieved, Plaintiffs-appellants appealed and assigned the

following errors:"

4G
CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073 7
DECISION

"1. The court a quo gravely committed reversible

error in law when it ruled on the issue not raised in
the pre-trial conference.

2. The court a quo committed reversible legal error

when it ruled that its alleged non-rejoinder of parties
is a ground for dismissal of complaint.

3. The court a quo gravely committed reversible error

when it virtually closed its eyes to the overwhelming
evidence proving the defendant'S admission that she
committed fraud in procuring the title of appellants'
subject property. "

To prove that 112 N. Domingo St. Cubao, Quezon City is

their family residence' address where Plaintiff-Appellant Milagros
has resided since 1952, Plaintiffs-appellants presented copies of
their Meraleo Bill,I7 as of September 20, 2002 in the name of
Milagros, and PLOT Bill Statement.Pas of August 18, 2002, in the
name of Milagros' husband, both indicating the said address.
Plaintiffs-appellants pointed out that Defendants-appellees
admitted during the pre-trial conference that Plaintiffs-appellants
did not receive any notice or court process."

Plaintiffs-appellants argued that the RTC erred in dismissing

their complaint when they failed to implead the City as party
defendant because said issue was never raised during the pre-trial
conference. Granting that the City needed to be impleaded, they
argued that the failure to do so was not a ground for dismissal of ;
17 Records, p. 183.
18 Records, pp. 184-185.
19 Records, "Pre-trial Order," pp. 85-88.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073 8
DECISION

the case pursuant to Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

Plaintiffs-appellants contended that the City is not a party in
interest because it does not stand to be benefited or injured by the
outcome of the case. Plaintiffs-appellants admitted that they no
longer assailed the City's fraudulent acts of not sending them
notices because the 1 year period for them to question the said
irregularity had already lapsed. Hence, there was no more basis
to implead the City. The fact that the Treasurer had already issued
the final deed of purchase in favor of Ewilda Victa has rendered
the City's participation to cease. There was no more need to
implead the City in the complaint.

Plaintiffs-appellants contended that the instant case was not

premised on the ground that the title of the subject property was
procured through an anomalous levy and auction sale or that the
complaint sought the Declaration of Nullity of Levy and Auction
Sale. The case was filed mainly because of the fraudulent
confirmation of the auction sale and the subsequent order of the
RTC allowing the transfer of the Plaintiffs-appellants' title to
Ewilda Victa.

The appeal is not meritorious.

Plaintiffs-appellants argued that they are not assailing the

validity of the levy and auction sale conducted by the City but the
alleged fraudulent confirmation of the auction sale and the
subsequent RTC's Order transferring the subject lot's title in the
name of Defendants-appellees. Plaintiffs-appellants claimed that
they were not notified of the hearing of the petition/motion to
surrender the duplicate copy of the subject property's title and
that such fact was admitted by the Defendants-appellants during v
 CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073 9
DECISION

the pre-trial conference." Plaintiffs-appellants contended that

Defendants-appellees fraudulently made it appear that the notice
of said hearing was personally delivered to Plaintiff-appellant
Milagros at 21 Merville, White Plains, Quezon City, which was a
fictitious address.

Plaintiffs-appellants' complaint is without merit. An action

for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property wrongfully
registered by another to its rightful and legal owner. All that may
be alleged in the complaint are two facts which admitting them to
be true, would entitle the plaintiff to recover title to the disputed
land, namely, (1) that the Plaintiff was the owner of the land; and
(2) that the defendant had illegally dispossessed him of the same."

It is admitted that Plaintiffs-appellants failed to redeem the

subject lot, and, the Treasurer issued the Final Bill of Sale, dated
October 27, 1998 in favor of the Defendants-appellees. After the
redemption period had expired, Defendants-appellees filed a
petition for an application of new title with the RTC. Plaintiffs-
appellants claim however that they were not notified of the
hearing.

Evidence showed that the series of Tax Declaration Nos.

05074-B22 for the year 1974; 008-183223 for the year 1980; GR-008-
186324 for the year 1985; 008-258825 for the year 1994; and 98-008-
333026 for the year 1998 bore 21 Merville White Plains, Quezon
City as Plaintiffs-appellants' address. Plaintiffs-appellants did not",

20 Pre-trial Order, p.2, Records, pp. 85-88.

21 Heirs of Maximo Sanjorjo vs. Heirs of Manuel Santos, G.R. No. 140457, January 19,2005.
22 Records, p. 204.
23 Records, p 205.
24 Records, p. 206.
25 Records, p. 207.
26 Records, p. 208.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073 10
DECISION

even dispute the address on said documents. Defendants-

appellants and the City properly relied on the address inscribed
on said tax declarations. Furthermore, the photocopy of Tax
Declaration No. 98-008-386127 presented by the Plaintiffs-
appellants in their names containing the address 4G St. Paul St.,
Cubao, Quezon City was a recent tax declaration which was
secured by the Plaintiffs-appellants after the auction sale and
before Tax Declaration No. 98-008-416928 was issued in the name
of Ewilda Victa.

Plaintiffs-appellants submitted as proof of their true address

of 112 N. Domingo St., Quezon City the following: a) their
Meraleo Electric Bill, dated September 20, 2002, and b) PLOT Bill,
dated August 18, 2002. The documents however, are without
probative value because they did not specifically prove Plaintiffs-
appellants' address at the time the notice of hearing was served
on June 1999 or during the auction sale on October 1997 was
already 112 N. Domingo St., Quezon City.

Granting that Plaintiffs-appellants were not notified of the

scheduled hearing of the petition/motion to surrender the
duplicate copy of TCT No. 8096 and for the application of the new
title, the same would still not be a ground to armul TCT No.
T-38701 and to reconvey the title to Plaintiffs-appellants.

Section 75 of PO 1529 provides:

Sec. 75. Application for new certificate upon expiration of

redemption period. - Upon the expiration of the time, if any,
allowed by law for redemption after the registered land has
been sold on execution, or taken or sold for the enforcement of a ,
27Records, p. 10.
u Records, p.215.

So
 CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073 11
DECISION

lien of any description, except a mortgage lien, the purchaser at

such sale or anyone claiming under him may petition the court
for the entry of a new certificate to him.

Before the entry of a new certificate of title, the registered

owner may pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach
or annul such proceedings."

In relation thereto, Section 107thereof provides:

Sec. 107. Surrender of withheld duplicate certificates.

Where it is necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant
to any involuntary instrument which divests the title of the
registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary
instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or
failure of the holder to surrender the owner's duplicate
certificate of title, the party in interest may file a petition in
court to compel the surrender of the same to the Register of
Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner
or any person withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender
the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate or
memorandum upon such surrender. If the person withholding
the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the process of the
court, or if for any reason the outstanding owner's duplicate
certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the
annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new
certificate of title in lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all
duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the
annulment of the outstanding duplicate."

As a rule, before the lapse of the one year redemption

period, the debtor/redemptioner remains the owner of the
property. The right acquired by the purchaser at the public
auction is merely inchoate until the period of redemption has J,

29 Padilla vs. Philippine Consumers' Cooperative, 463 SCRA 480 (2005).

30 Padilla vs. Philippine Producers' Cooperative, 463 SCRA 480, (2005).

51
CA-G.~ CV NO. 82073 12
DECISION

expired without right being exercised by the redemptioner. Such

right becomes absolute only after the expiration of the redemption
period without the right of redemption having been exercised. The
purchaser is entitled as a matter of right to consolidation of title
and the possession of the property."

When Plaintiffs-appellants' right of redemption expired,

Defendants-appellees filed a petition for an application of new
title before the RTC. There was no fraud existing to justify
annulling Defendants-appellees' title and for reconveyance even if
Plaintiffs-appellants were not informed of the hearing of the said
petition/motion because it was already a matter of right on the
part of the Defendants-appellees after the expiration of the
redemption period to consolidate the subject property's title in
their name even without notice on the part of the Plaintiffs-
appellants. Even assuming that Plaintiffs-appellants were
properly notified of the hearing, still it will not make any
difference because the consolidation of title in favor of the auction
buyer is a matter of right after redemption period despite filing of
complaint for annulment of the auction sale, which the Plaintiffs-
appellants failed to do. Plaintiffs-appellants' right over the
property ceased after the redemption period and the issuance of
new title becomes ministerial on the part of the Register of Deeds.

We agree with the Plaintiffs-appellants' argument that non-

joinder of parties is not a ground for the dismissal of the
complaint. Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non-joinder of
parties or mis-joinder of parties. Parties may be dropped or added
by the order of the court on motion of any party or on its own ~

3) See Serrano vs. CA, G.R. No.133883, December 10,2003.

CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073 13
DECISION

initiative at any stage of the action and on such term as are just.32
However, a careful review of the RTC's decision will show that
Plaintiffs-appellants' complaint was not dismissed solely on the
ground that the City was not impleaded but more importantly on
its findings that the auction sale was regular as the Plaintiffs-
appellants waived their right to contest the same.

All told, We find that the consolidation of the subject lot's

title in favor of the Defendants-appellees despite the alleged lack
of notice on the part of the Plaintiffs-appellant is not a ground for
reconveyance of the subject lot's title to the former owner. The
confirmation of the auction sale was regular.

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is Dismissed. The Decision,

dated September 10, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay
City, Branch 18, in Civil Case No. TG-2046 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

32 Chua vs. Torres, 468 SeRA 358 (2005).

CA-G.R. CV NO. 82073 14
DECISION

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the court.