Supreme Court Decisions: Land Titles: irregularly issued title can be cancelled administratively by LRA

Supreme Court Decisions:

Land Titles: irregularly issued title can be cancelled administratively by LRA (Severino M. Manotok IV, et al. vs. Heirs of Homer L. Barque, represented by Teresita Barque Hernandez, December 12, 2005)


FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605

SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV, FROILAN M. MANOTOK, FERNANDO M. MANOTOK, FAUSTO MANOTOK III, MA. MAMERTA M. MANOTOK, PATRICIA L. TIONGSON, PACITA L. GO, ROBERTO LAPERAL III, MICHAEL MARSHALL V. MANOTOK, MARY ANN MANOTOK, FELISA MYLENE V. MANO-TOK, IGNACIO MANOTOK, JR., MILAGROS V. MANO-TOK, SEVERINO MANOTOK III, ROSA R. MANOTOK, MIGUEL A.B. SISON, GEORGE M. BOCANEGRA, MA. CRISTINA E. SISON, PHILIPP L. MANOTOK, JOSE CLEMENTE L. MANOTOK, RAMON SEVERINO L. MANOTOK, THELMA R. MANOTOK, JOSE MARIA MANOTOK, JESUS JUDE MANOTOK, JR. and MA. THERESA L. MANOTOK,

represented by their Attorney-in-fact, Rosa R. Manotok,
Petitioners,

- versus -

HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE, represented by TERESITA BARQUE HERNANDEZ,

Respondents.

Promulgated: December 12, 2005


DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

These consolidated petitions for review assail, in G.R. No. 162335, the February 24, 2004 Amended Decision1 of the Third Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners’ TCT No. RT-22481 and directing the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to reconstitute respondents’ TCT No. 210177; and in G.R. No. 162605, the November 7, 2003 Amended Decision2 of the Special Division of Five of the Former Second Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners’ TCT No. RT-22481, and the LRA to reconstitute respondents’ TCT No. T-210177 and the March 12, 2004 Resolution3 denying the motion for reconsideration.

The facts as found by the Court of Appeals4 are as follows:

Petitioners, (respondents herein) as the surviving heirs of the late Homer Barque, filed a petition with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. 210177 issued in the name of Homer L. Barque, which was destroyed in the fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall, including the Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, sometime in 1988. In support of the petition, petitioners submitted the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 210177, real estate tax receipts, tax decla-rations and the Plan FLS 3168 D covering the property.

Upon being notified of the petition for administrative recon-stitution, private respondents (petitioners herein) filed their opposition thereto claiming that the lot covered by the title under reconstitution forms part of the land covered by their reconsti-tuted title TCT No. RT-22481, and alleging that TCT No. 210177 in the name of petitioners’ predeces-sors-in-interest is spurious.

On June 30, 1997, Atty. Benjamin M. Bustos, as reconstituting officer, denied the reconstitution of TCT No. 2101775 on grounds that:

1. Lots 823-A and 823-B, Fls-3168-D, containing areas of 171,473 Sq. Mtrs. and 171,472 Sq. Mtrs., respectively, covered by TCT No. 210177, appear to duplicate Lot 823 Piedad Estate, containing an area of 342,945 Sq. Mtrs., covered by TCT No. 372302 registered in the name of Severino M. Manotok, et. al., reconstituted under Adm. Reconstitution No. Q-213 dated February 01, 1991;

2. The submitted plan Fls-3168-D is a spurious docu-ment as categorically stated by Engr. Privadi J.G. Dalire, Chief, Geodetic Surveys Division, Land Management Bureau, in his letter dated February 19, 1997.6

Respondents’ motion for recon-sideration was denied in an order7 dated February 10, 1998 hence they appealed to the LRA.

The LRA ruled that the reconstituting officer should not have required the submission of documents other than the owner’s duplicate certificate of title as bases in denying the petition and should have confined himself with the owner’s duplicate certificate of title. 8

The LRA further declared:

Based on the documents presented, petitioners have established by clear and convincing evidence that TCT NO. 210177 was, at the time of the destruction thereof, valid, genuine, authentic and effective. Petitioners duly presented the original of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 210177 .... The logbook of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City lists TCT No. 210177 as among the titles lost .... The Register of Deeds of Quezon City himself acknowledged the existence and authenticity of TCT No. 210177 when he issued a certification to the effect that TCT No. 210177 was one of the titles destroyed and not salvaged from the fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall on 11 June 1988 ....

It is likewise noteworthy that the technical description and boundaries of the lot reflected in TCT No. 210177 absolutely conform to the technical description and boundaries of Lot 823 Piedad Estate ... as indicated in the B. L. Form No. 28-37-R dated 11-8-94 and B. L. Form No. 31-10 duly issued by the Bureau of Lands ....

It therefore becomes evident that the existence, validity, authenticity and effectivity of TCT No. 210177 was established indubitably and irrefutably by the petitioners. Under such circumstances, the reconstitution thereof should be given due course and the same is mandatory.
9….

It would be necessary to underscore that the certified copy
through levy on real property; and (2) by judicial action.22 Under Section 25723 and 25824 of the LGC, the basic real property tax constitutes as a lien on the property subject to the tax which may be levied upon through the issuance of a warrant. The local government unit concerned may also enforce the collection of the basic real property tax by civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. 25

Respondents levied on a portion of the MAGRA to satisfy the tax delinquency of PNOC-EDC. However, the land being levied is classified as inalienable. It is owned by the government and thus, cannot be sold at public auction. Likewise, the machineries, equipment and other infrastructures in the MAGRA cannot be levied and sold at public auction because it is not the property that is subject to the tax.

The personal liability for the tax delinquency, is generally on whoever is the owner of the real property at the time the tax accrues; where, however, the tax liability is imposed on the beneficial use of the real property such as those owned but leased to private persons or entities by the government, or when the assessment is made on the basis of the actual use thereof, the personal liability is on any person who has such beneficial or actual use at the time of the accrual of the tax. 26

In the case at bar, PNOC-EDC is the beneficial user, however, since respondents cannot avail of the administrative remedy through levy, they can only enforce the collection of real property tax through civil action.

PNOC-EDC also claims that the real property tax assessment is not yet final and executory. It avers that prior resort to administrative remedies before seeking judicial remedies is not necessary considering that the issue raised is purely a question of law. Consequently, it need not appeal the assessment to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals or to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals as provided under Sections 22627 and 22928 of the LGC.

We disagree. It is well-settled in Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City v. Local Government of Caloocan City29 that all adminis-trative remedies must be exhausted before availing of the judicial remedies.

Thus:

The petitioner cannot bypass the authority of the concerned administrative agencies and directly seek redress from the courts even on the pretext of raising a supposedly pure question of law without violating the doctrine of exhaustion of adminis-trative remedies. Hence, when the law provides for remedies against the action of an administrative board, body, or officer, as in the case at bar, relief to the courts can be made only after exhausting all remedies provided therein. Otherwise stated, before seeking the intervention of the courts, it is a precondition that petitioner should first avail of all the means afforded by the administrative processes.
If PNOC-EDC was not satisfied with the assessment of its property, it should have appealed to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals within 60 days from receipt of the written notice of assessment. Instead, it waited until the issuance of a warrant of levy before it filed a petition for injunction in the regional trial court, which was not in accordance with the remedies provided in the LGC.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The September 8, 2004 Decision and the January 10, 2005 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan City, Branch 17, in Civil Case No. 2003-14, are AFFIRMED insofar as it declared PNOC-EDC liable to pay the real property tax accruing from its use of the MAGRA. Respondents however are DIRECTED to refrain from levying on the buildings, infrastructures and machineries of PNOC-EDC to satisfy the payment of the real property tax delinquency.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Quisumbing, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.


*********************************************************

1 Rollo of G.R. No. 162335, pp. 113-118. Penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Edgardo F. Sundiam.

2 Rollo of G.R. No. 162605, pp. 56-66. Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero and concurred in by Associate Justices Eloy R. Bello, Jr., Edgardo P. Cruz and Danilo B. Pine. Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., dissented.

3 Rollo of G.R. No. 162605, pp. 71-73.

4 In CA-G.R. SP No. 66700, Rollo of G.R. No. 162605, pp. 56-57.

5 Rollo of G.R. No. 162605, p. 86.

6 Id.

7 Id. at 87.

8 Id. at 90.

9 Id. at 91. 22Sec. 256, Local Government Code.
23 SECTION 257. Local Government’s Lien. – The basic real property tax and any other tax levied under this Title constitutes a lien on the property subject to tax, superior to all liens, charges or encumbrances in favor of any person, irrespective of the owner or possessor thereof, enforceable by administrative or judicial action, and may only be extinguished upon payment of the tax and the related interests and expenses.

24 SECTION 258. Levy on Real Property. – After the expiration of the time required to pay the basic real property tax or any other tax levied under this Title, realty property subject to such tax may be levied upon through the issuance of a warrant on or before, or simultaneously with, the institution of the civil action for the collection of the delinquent tax. …

25 Sec. 266, Local Government Code.

26 Vitug, Jose C. and Acosta, Ernesto D., Tax Law and Jurisprudence [2000 ed.], p. 490.

27 SECTION 226. Local Board of Assessment Appeals. – Any owner or person having legal interest in the property who is not satisfied with the action of the provincial, city or municipal assessor in the assessment of his property may, within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the written notice of assessment, appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals of the province or city by filing a petition under oath in the form prescribed for the purpose, together with copies of the tax declarations and such affidavits or documents submitted in support of the appeal.

28 SECTION 229. Action by the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. –
(a) The Board shall decide the appeal within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of receipt of such appeal. …….

(c) … The owner of the property of the person having legal interest therein or the assessor who is not satisfied with the decision of the Board, may, within thirty (30) days after receipt of the decision of said Board, appeal to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, as herein provided. The decision of the Central Board shall be final and executory.
29 G.R. No. 146382, August 7, 2003, 408 SCRA 494, 499.