FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215372. March 29, 2022.]
HEIRS OF JUANITO LUTERO AND HARDEVI LUTERO, petitioners, vs.PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF THE PROVINCE OF ILOILO [THEN NAZARIO BILIRAN] AND ERNESTO SOLINAP, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: ELVIRA ABONADO-SOLINAP, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 29, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215372 (Heirs of Juanito Lutero and Hardevi Lutero v. Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Iloilo [Then Nazario Biliran] and Ernesto Solinap, substituted by his heirs, namely: Elvira Abonado-Solinap, et al.). — Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 dated January 10, 2015 filed by petitioners Heirs of Juanito Lutero and Hardevi Lutero (petitioners), assailing the Decision 2 dated October 29, 2013 and Resolution 3 dated October 29, 2014 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 07035.
The relevant antecedents
On June 13, 1997, the Provincial Treasurer of Iloilo, Nazario Biliran (Biliran), conducted an auction sale of 17 parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-21692, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. O-3777 and OCT No. O-03764 for payment of real property tax delinquencies. All properties are located in Barangay Tambal, Janiuay, Iloilo, and registered in the name of Tiburcio Lutero. 4
At the auction sale, petitioners were the highest bidders, as shown by the Certification 5 dated June 13, 1997 issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Janiuay, Iloilo. Thereafter, petitioners were given the corresponding Certificates of Sale of Delinquent Properties. 6
After the lapse of the one-year redemption period, petitioners demanded Biliran to issue a Final Bill of Sale. However, Biliran refused, and claimed that some of the parcels of land had already been redeemed by Ernesto Solinap (Solinap).
Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
Because of Biliran's refusal to issue a Final Bill of Sale, petitioners filed a Petition for Mandamus7 dated July 29, 1998 before the RTC of Iloilo.
On September 14, 1998, Biliran filed his Answer, 8 where he stated that Solinap timely redeemed eight out of the 17 parcels of land, and because of such timely redemption, petitioners' demand for the issuance of a Final Bill of Sale cannot be legally complied with. 9 Apparently, in the Provincial Legal Office of Iloilo's 2nd Indorsement 10 dated August 20, 1998, the Provincial Legal Officer of Iloilo ascertained that Solinap is a person with interest on the properties and allowed the latter to make a redemption of the same. CAIHTE
Meanwhile, on April 8, 1999, petitioners filed an Amended Petition, 11 to include Solinap as an additional defendant. Thereafter, on May 13, 1999, Solinap filed his Answer to Amended Complaint, 12 where he contended that he made a timely redemption of eight out of the 17 parcels of land sold at the auction sale in the amount of P289,459.83 13 as shown by the Certificates of Redemption 14 issued by the provincial treasurer in his favor. 15
On August 23, 1999, the RTC issued its Pre-Trial Order, 16 which listed the stipulated facts and issues to be resolved, to wit:
During the pre-trial conference, the petitioners and respondents admitted the following facts:
1. Petitioners are the highest bidder in the auction sale conducted by the respondent Provincial Treasurer;
2. The existence of a demand letter made by the petitioners, thru their counsel, and addressed to the Provincial Treasurer Nazario Biliran, Jr. to issue a Final Deed of Sale in their favor;
3. The issuance of the Certificate of Redemption insofar as redeemed lots are involved;
4. The lots redeemed by respondent Ernesto Solinap are also part of the parcels of lands which are not subject of the Mandamus case;
xxx xxx xxx
LEGAL ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Certificate of Redemption already issued by the Provincial Treasurer Nazario Biliran, Jr. is valid;
2. Whether or not the Provincial Treasurer can be compelled to issue a Final Deed of Sale to the petitioners; and
3. Who among the parties, is entitled to damages. 17
After pre-trial, Solinap filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 18 dated October 14, 2003, attaching thereto an Affidavit 19 he executed. In the affidavit, Solinap alleged that the parcels of land which he redeemed were acquired by his late father, Loreto Solinap.
Meanwhile, on November 18, 2003, petitioners and Solinap filed a Joint Manifestation, 20 where they stated that the issues involved in the case are purely legal and there is no more controversy as to the facts. Thus, they submitted the case for resolution.
After the parties filed their respective Memoranda, the RTC rendered its Decision 21 dated August 10, 2005 which granted petitioners' prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered granting the Writ of Mandamus, ordering respondent Provincial Treasurer of Iloilo to execute a Final Bill of Sale over the auctioned properties in favor of the petitioners Hardevi Lutero and her children, namely: Benjamin Lutero, Juanito Lutero, Jr., Devi Lutero Abanilla, Gobindram Lutero, Carlo Lutero, Mike Lutero and Ron Lutero.
The Certificate of Redemption issued to respondent Ernesto Solinap is declared null and void and cancelled, and the Provincial Treasurer of Iloilo is ordered to release the redemption price to respondent Ernesto Solinap.
SO ORDERED. 22
On September 29, 2005, Solinap filed a Motion for Reconsideration 23 where he primarily argued that he was able to establish that he has legal interest over the redeemed properties, in view of the affidavit and the various documents he attached in his submissions before the court. Solinap further averred in his motion for reconsideration that since petitioners did not oppose his motion for summary judgment, the issue with regard to his legal interest over the properties can no longer be disputed. 24
On February 4, 2010, the RTC rendered its Order, 25 which reversed and set aside its previous ruling, to wit:
[T]he Court reconsiders its decision dated August 10, 2005, because it has been shown in his affidavit that respondent Ernesto Solinap being the son and heir of Loreto Solinap, the registered owner of the properties sold at public auction, has legal interest over the properties sold at public auction and therefore, his redemption of the properties from the office of the Provincial Treasurer which was accepted by the said office, is valid and legal having paid the redemption price within the one-year period. Consequently, the issuance of certificate of Redemption by Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Iloilo is likewise legal, valid and binding petitioners.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Ernesto Solinap is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 10, 2005 is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE.
Another judgment is rendered dismissing the Amended petition for Mandamus filed by petitioners to be without merit. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED. 26
Proceedings before the CA
Aggrieved by the ruling of the RTC, petitioners appealed before the CA. However, in its Decision 27 dated October 29, 2013, the CA denied the appeal and ruled that the RTC correctly found that Solinap was able to establish his legal interest to redeem the properties. The CA further emphasized that in petitioners' mandamus suit, the RTC was not called upon to determine the issue of ownership over the redeemed parcels of land, thus:
It must be emphasized that in the mandamus suit, the RTC was not called upon to determine the issue of ownership over the redeemed parcels of land but merely to determine whether or not respondent-appellee Provincial Treasurer may be compelled to issue a final bill of sale in favor of petitioners-appellants. Since respondent-appellee Solinap was able to adduce evidence in support of his right of redemption over the property, the RTC correctly held that mandamus cannot lie against respondent-appellee Provincial Treasurer.
xxx xxx xxx
As stated in the earlier part of this Decision, the question of the ownership of the parcels of land is not in issue in the suit for mandamus. This question is best addressed in another proceeding instituted for the purpose. 28
On December 5, 2013, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 29 but the same was denied in the CA's Resolution 30 dated October 29, 2014. DETACa
The Instant Petition
Undeterred by the adverse rulings of the CA, petitioners filed the instant petition before the Court, raising the following issues:
1. The CA, in affirming the RTC's Decision, blatantly disregarded the requirement that a Summary Judgment may only be rendered when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. 31
2. The CA erred in affirming the RTC's factual finding that Solinap has legal interest over the redeemed properties. 32
3. The CA erred in affirming the RTC's denial of petitioners' Petition for Mandamus despite the clear presence of a duty that Biliran is enjoined by law to perform, yet failed to perform. 33
The Court's Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious.
The RTC's grant of Summary
Under Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, as amended, a summary judgment may be allowed when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, except as to the amount of damages, to wit:
RULE 35
Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. — A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof.
Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party. — A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof.
Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. — The motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time specified for the hearing. The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at least three (3) days before the hearing. After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Emphasis supplied)
As explained in Republic v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, 34 a summary judgment is resorted to in order to avoid useless delays and long-drawn-out litigations as the court is allowed to decide the case summarily when the facts are undisputed:
Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays. When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues, when the affidavits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine, then summary judgment as prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a matter of law. The determinative factor, therefore, in a motion for summary judgment, is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. aDSIHc
For a full-blown trial to be dispensed with, the party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of genuine issues of fact, or that the issue posed is patently insubstantial as to constitute a genuine issue. Genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived. 35 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
In this case, it is worthy to recall that Solinap and petitioners filed a Joint Manifestation, where both parties conceded that the issues to be resolved by the RTC are purely legal issues. In other words, petitioners admitted before the court that there are no issues as to any material fact in the case. This being the case, petitioners, therefore, cannot be allowed to repudiate their clear admission that there exists no genuine factual issue in the instant case.
In any event, it likewise bears emphasis that the mandamus suit before the RTC is only concerned with the issue of whether Biliran, as the Provincial Treasurer, can be compelled to issue a Final Bill of Sale. As aptly pointed out by the CA, the RTC was not tasked to determine the issue of ownership of the redeemed properties. Thus, the mandamus suit pertained only to a purely legal question, and consequently, the RTC's grant of summary judgment was proper because there was clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact involved in the case.
Factual findings of the RTC, when
To recall, in denying petitioners' prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, the RTC found that the provincial treasurer cannot be compelled to issue a Final Bill of Sale because of the valid redemption made by Solinap. As ruled by the RTC, Solinap has legal interest in the redeemed properties based on the affidavit he submitted, and the other supporting documents he attached to his pleadings, i.e., the Certificates of Redemption issued by the provincial treasurer in his favor. Pertinently, the CA affirmed these findings and agreed with the RTC's ruling that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is unwarranted in the case.
In this regard, it must be stressed that the findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are deemed final and conclusive, and may no longer be reviewed on appeal. As held in Givero v. Givero: 36
The restriction of the review to questions of law emanates from the Court's not being a trier of facts. As such, the Court cannot determine factual issues in appeals taken from the lower courts. As the consequence of the restriction, the Court accords high respect, if not conclusive effect, to the findings of fact by the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, unless there exists an exceptional reason to disregard the findings of fact, like the following, namely:
(a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
(c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;
(d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;
(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
(g) When the CA's findings are contrary to those by the trial court;
(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(i) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;
(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or
(k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 37 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
In the instant case, the Court finds that none of the exceptions exists. Thus, there is no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that indeed, Solinap validly redeemed the properties.
A Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued
Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides the parameters for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to wit:
Section 3. Petition for mandamus. — When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. ETHIDa
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. (Emphasis supplied)
In Lihaylihay v. Tan, 38 the Court decreed that before a writ of mandamus is issued, there must be a concurrence between a clear legal right of the petitioner and a correlative duty incumbent upon the respondent, thus:
A writ of mandamus may issue in either of two (2) situations: first, "when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station"; second, "when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person . . . unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled."
The first situation demands a concurrence between a clear legal right accruing to petitioner and a correlative duty incumbent upon respondents to perform an act, this duty being imposed upon them by law. 39 (Emphasis supplied; citation omitted)
In the same case, the Court further held that the legal right must already be clearly established since a writ of mandamus never issues in doubtful cases:
Petitioner's legal right must have already been clearly established. It cannot be a prospective entitlement that is yet to be settled. In Lim Tay v. Court of Appeals, this Court emphasized that "[m]andamus will not issue to establish a right, but only to enforce one that is already established." In Pefianco v. Moral, this Court underscored that a writ of mandamus "never issues in doubtful cases."
Respondents must also be shown to have actually neglected to perform the act mandated by law. Clear in the text of Rule 65, Section 3 is the requirement that respondents "unlawfully neglect" the performance of a duty. The mere existence of a legally mandated duty or the pendency of its performance does not suffice. 40 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
Applying the foregoing jurisprudential precepts, it is manifestly clear that the petitioners were unable to establish their entitlement to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, considering that:
First, petitioners were unable to prove that they had a clear legal right to the issuance of a Final Bill of Sale, considering that the properties were already validly redeemed by Solinap; and
Second, there was no showing that Biliran, the Provincial Treasurer, unlawfully neglected the performance of his duties, since with Solinap's valid redemption, he can no longer issue a Final Bill of Sale over the same parcels of land.
All in all, the Court finds that the CA did not err when it affirmed the RTC's Decision dismissing petitioners' petition for mandamus.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari dated January 10, 2015 filed by the Heirs of Juanito Lutero and Hardevi Lutero is DENIED. The Decision dated October 29, 2013 and the Resolution dated October 29, 2014 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07035 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 23-100.
2. Id. at 101-105. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court) and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla concurring.
3. Id. at 108-110; Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (a retired Member of the Court) and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla concurring.
4. Id. at 101-C.
5. Id. at 165.
6. Id. at 167-183.
7. Id. at 188-191.
8. Id. at 220-222.
9. Id. at 220.
10. Id. at 211-214.
11. Id. at 237-243.
12. Id. at 252-255.
13. Id. at 253.
14. Id. at 193-200.
15. Id. at 253.
16. Id. at 265-266.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 406-415.
19. Id. at 417-418.
20. Id., unpaginated.
21. Id. at 454-460.
22. Id. at 460.
23. Id. at 462-489.
24. Id. at 463-468.
25. Id. at 112-116.
26. Id. at 116.
27. Id. at 101-105.
28. Id. at 103-104.
29. Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 582-587.
30. Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 108-110.
31. Id. at 49.
32. Id. at 58.
33. Id. at 74.
34. 775 Phil. 361 (2015).
35. Id. at 378-379.
36. 661 Phil. 114 (2011).
37. Id. at 124-125.
38. 836 Phil. 400 (2018).
39. Id. at 412.
40. Id. at 412-413.