Ruben Reyes v Tang Soat Ing (Joanna Tang) and Ando Sy

GR. No. 185620 Dec. 14, 2011

Topic: Involuntary Dealings – Enforcement of liens on registered land and application of new certificate upon
expiration of redemption period (Sec. 74-75)

FACTS:
 (Civil case 1245-M) MFR filed a complaint for Enforcement of Easement and Damages with Prayer for
Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order against respondents for their commercial and industrial use
of their property covered by TCT No. T-198753. MFR sought for damages suffered by its pig farm resulting
from respondents’ illegal use of their property.
 After trial, the RTC granted MFR’s complaint and held that respondents had defied the clear undertaking
stated in the title to limit the use to purposes not commercial or industrial in character as they had used the
land as a chemical processing site and as a storage facility of chemicals (devoting it to industrial purposes).
This was affirmed by CA on appeal.
 Upon motion of MFR, RTC issued a Writ of Execution. The Sheriff in its Report manifested that on Oct. 9,
1998 a copy of the Writ of Execution and of Notice was served to Tang Soat Ing thru the caretaker who said
Tang Soat Ing has no more properties and the factory located in the compound is being leased to other
people. On the next visit, Tang Soat Ing and the caretaker were not at the property. Thereafter, he was told
by the caretaker Tang Soat Ing had received the papers and had informed his lawyer.
 A few days after, the Sheriff presented the Writ of Execution and Notice of Levy on Execution to the ROD
and the Notice of Levy was inscribed on the TCT. A Notice of Sale on Execution of Real Property was issued
and posted on the Bulletin Boards in Bulacan (Municipal Hall, Church, Chapel, Provincial Capital Bldg.),
and published in the Times Newsweekly.
 At the public auction, MFR was declared as the highest bidder and was issued a Certificate of Sale which
was registered with the ROD Bulacan.
 MFR filed a Motion for the cancellation of TCT and the issuance of a new COT in its name after the
respondents failed to exercise their right to redemption in 5 years. This was denied by the RTC, holding that
a mere motion is not sufficient for the cancellation of a COT and that under Sec. 107 of PD 1529, a petition
and a hearing are required for the issuance of new COT.
 MFR filed a petition under same docket number praying for the same relief with an additional prayer for the
issuance of an order directing respondents to surrender the Owner’s duplicate of Copy of the TCT. Upon
motion, the respondents were declared in default and MFR presented evidence ex-parte wherein petitioner
Reyes substituted as party-petitioner. The RTC granted the motion and denied the respondent’s Opposition
and Motion for lack of merit.
o Copies of the order were separately served to the counsels and ROD (Jan and Feb 2006) but service
to respondents’ counsel was returned and rendered impossible as the latter had already died (Dec.
2005)
 Reyes filed another Motion praying for the cancellation of TCT and the issuance of a new one his name
 May 19, 2006 – respondents’ new counsel filed Opposition and Motion, opposing Reyes’ motion and
moving to declare void the execution sale.
 The CA annulled and set aside the RTC orders. It declared the public auction sale of property invalid and
the Certificate of Sale in favor of petitioner null and void.
o CA noted petitioner did not strictly comply with the req. of Sec. 15 Rule 39 of ROC
o CA relied on SC holding in Villaceran v. Beltejar an administrative case finding therein respondent
Sheriff guilty of simple neglect of duty for failure to strictly comply with the rules on execution
sale.
o CA ruled that the deficiencies in the notice of execution sale were substantial and of such nature as
to prevent the court from applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions by Sheriff Legaspi at the time of the execution sale.
o CA pointed out that it was incumbent upon Reyes’ part to prove that the requirements of the law
on execution sale have been fully complied with

Petitioner’s Arguments:
 To require him to “file his petition in another court would unduly divest the RTC of its jurisdiction to
enforce its final and executory decision”
  Invokes SC ruling in Natalia Realty, Inc v. CA that “jurisdiction of the court to execute ins judgment
continues even after the judgment has become final for the purpose of enforcement of judgment”

Respondents’ arguments:
 No details (but they consistently flouted the judgment in the Civil case by their lack of notice of execution
proceedings)

ISSUES:
1. Whether execution sale is void/valid - VALID
2. WON Sec 107 of PD 1529 contemplates the filing of a separate cadastral case before the RTC acting as a land
registration court - YES

RULING:
On the 1st Issue
 Contrary to CA holding, the burden of evidence to prove lack of compliance with Sec. 15, Rule 39 of the
ROC rests on the party claiming the lack thereof i.e., respondents. In this case, respondents made no attempt
to meet this burden of evidence, simply maintaining lack of notice of entire proceedings (execution and
issuance of a new title) before the trial court.
 The disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed was not overcome by
respondents. Documents on record lead us the inevitable conclusion that respondents had constructive, if
not actual, notice of execution up to and until issuance of new COT
 There was substantial compliance with Sec. 15 Rule 39 of ROC (documents in support – Certificate of
posting issued by Sheriff and affidavit of Publication by the publisher of the Times Newsweekly. The
purpose of notice – to let the public know of the sale to the end that the best price of better bid may be made
possible to minimize the prejudice to the judgment debtor – was realized.
 In this jurisdiction, we adhere to the doctrine that registration in a public registry works as constructive
notice to the whole world, as provided under Sec 51 of Act 496, as amended by Sec 52 of PD 1529
 Respondents’ attack on the validity of the execution sale is barred by laches, which is the failure or neglect
for an unreasonable and unexplainable length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or
should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
Laches operates a bar in equity.
o On 3 occasions, the Sheriff served a copy of the Writ of Execution on respondents and followed up
thereon
o For mote than 5 years, the respondents made no effort to settle judgment debt, much less, to
ascertain status of execution proceedings and the levy.
o 8 years had lapsed from receipt of copy of Writ of Execution until their new counsel filed the
Opposition and Motion
 Villaceran v. Beltejar inapplicable: Villaceran is an administrative case finding the Sheriff guilty of simple
neglect of duty for failure to strictly comply with the rules on execution sale. SC declaration that "[n]o
reason exists not to apply the principle in the extrajudicial foreclosure sales of real property (statutory
requirements of posting and publication must be strictly complied with since non-compliance could
constitute a jurisdictional defect that would invalidate the sale) to execution sales of real property under
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court" is an obiter which should not be definitive of the facts obtaining herein
 Their claim is belied by the evidence on record and cannot invalidate the enforcement and execution of a
final and executory judgment of this Court. Their silence and inaction for 8 years from the time subject
property was validly levied upon by RTC bars them from claiming invalidity of the execution proceedings

On the 2nd Issue

Petitioner Reyes’ reasoning is off tangent
Natalia is inapplicable because the execution proceedings in this case have been completed and was terminated
upon the execution sale of the subject property. Reyes already consolidated ownership over the subject property
as owner, he has a right to have the same registered in his name. This transfer of title in his name is no longer
part of the execution proceedings.
Sec. 107 of PD 1529 falls under Petitions and Actions after Original Registration
SECTION 107. Surrender of withhold 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 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 not 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

That a succeeding registration of property in another’s name, after its original registration, contemplates a
separate original action is reinforced by our ruling in Padilla v. Philippine Producer’s Cooperative Marketing
Association, Inc. that it was proper to file a petition with the cadastral court for the cancellation of TCT and the
issuance of another in its name. This is a procedure provided for under Section 78 of Act 496 and Sec. 75 of PD
1529

Petition is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing as a separate original action pursuant to Sec. 107 of PD 1529.