Orlina vs. Ventura

A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally at any time, even after it has become final, and certiorari is available notwithstanding the loss of the remedy of appeal. In an in rem proceeding under the Property Registration Decree for the cancellation of a registered owner's title and issuance of a new one, while jurisdiction over the parties is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, notice to the registered owner is nonetheless required to satisfy due process; absent such notice, all proceedings and the resulting judgment are null and void.

Cynthia Ventura was the registered owner of a 406-square-meter parcel of land in Baesa, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 272336 and Tax Declaration No. E-004-01387. From 1998 to 2008, she had been delinquent in the payment of real property taxes, prompting the City Treasurer of Quezon City to subject the property to levy and advertise it for sale at public auction. Reynaldo E. Orlina emerged as the highest bidder at the auction conducted on April 2, 2009, and after the one-year redemption period lapsed without Ventura redeeming the property, the City Treasurer issued a Final Bill of Sale in his favor. The controversy centers on the subsequent judicial proceeding for approval of that final bill of sale and cancellation of Ventura's title, brought under Sections 75 and 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Property Registration Decree.

Cynthia Ventura was the registered owner of a 406-square-meter parcel of land located in Baesa, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 272336 and Tax Declaration No. E-004-01387. From 1998 to 2008, Ventura had been delinquent in the payment of real property taxes amounting to ₱27,471.18, inclusive of penalty charges, and failed to pay despite notice of such delinquency. As a result, the City Treasurer of Quezon City issued a warrant subjecting the property to levy. To satisfy the tax delinquency, the property was advertised for sale at a public auction by posting a notice at the main entrance of the Quezon City Hall, in a public and conspicuous place in the barangay where the property was located, and by publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

On April 2, 2009, a public auction was conducted, during which Reynaldo E. Orlina turned out to be the highest bidder with a bid price of ₱400,000.00. The corresponding Certificate of Sale was issued in his favor on the same date. After the lapse of the one-year redemption period without Ventura redeeming the subject property, the City Treasurer of Quezon City issued a Final Bill of Sale to Orlina. Orlina then filed a petition before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 215, seeking approval of the final bill of sale, cancellation of the original and duplicate copy of TCT No. 272336, and issuance of a new certificate of title in his favor.

On September 28, 2011, the RTC issued an Order setting the case for hearing on December 7, 2011 and directed the service of notice of hearing, together with a copy of the petition and its annexes, upon the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, the Land Registration Authority of Quezon City, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Office of the Solicitor General, and the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The RTC also ordered the posting of a notice of hearing at the main entrance of the Quezon City Hall, the bulletin board of the RTC, and at the site of the subject property. During the initial hearing on December 7, 2011, Orlina marked several documents to establish compliance with the jurisdictional requirements. There being no opposition filed, the RTC issued an order of general default and granted Orlina's motion to present evidence ex parte.

On May 14, 2012, the RTC rendered a Decision approving the Final Bill of Sale, declaring TCT No. 272336 null and void, and ordering the issuance of a new title in Orlina's name, with the proviso that the excess proceeds in the amount of ₱363,869.75 be remitted to Ventura. Pursuant to this Decision, TCT No. 004-2012010324 was issued in favor of Orlina, who subsequently filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession, granted by the RTC on February 27, 2013. It was only at this point that Ventura filed an omnibus motion seeking reconsideration of the RTC Decision, arguing that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over her person, thereby depriving her of due process. She also filed an urgent motion for reconsideration of the order granting the writ of possession. The RTC denied both motions, holding that the reliefs sought were proper in a separate action and not in a case already decided and final.

• Certiorari as Improper Remedy: Orlina argued that the petition for certiorari filed by Ventura before the CA should not have been allowed, as certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. By the time Ventura filed her Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC Decision had already become final.
• Jurisdiction to Determine Validity of Tax Sale: Orlina maintained that the RTC that approved the final bill of sale had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the tax delinquency auction sale proceeding conducted by the City Government of Quezon City, and that any question Ventura raised regarding the sale must be raised in an entirely separate proceeding.
• Defective Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: Orlina assailed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping accompanying Ventura's petition before the CA on the ground that it was signed by her sons and not by Ventura herself, asserting that there was no justifiable reason for substitution and no mention of authority to sign in the Special Power of Attorney.
• Collateral Attack on Title: Orlina contended that even granting the existence of irregularities in the tax delinquency sale, the same must be determined in a separate case and not in the petition for approval of the final bill of sale, as doing so would constitute a collateral attack on his title, the property having already been transferred to his name.
• Due Notice to Ventura: Orlina insisted that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Ventura's person, asserting that he and the City Treasurer sent the warrant of levy and notices to Ventura using the address stated in the tax declaration and certificate of title, and that the posting requirement was complied with when the RTC order was posted at the site of the property.

• Denial of Due Process: Ventura argued that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person, as there was no proof that she was served with notices of the proceedings before the trial court, thereby depriving her of her constitutional right to due process.
• Suspension of Writ of Possession: Ventura filed an urgent motion for reconsideration of the order granting the writ of possession, praying for the suspension of its implementation pending resolution of her omnibus motion.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether the remedy of certiorari may be availed of by Ventura despite the loss of the remedy of appeal.
• Jurisdiction over Tax Sale Validity: Whether the RTC that approved the final bill of sale had jurisdiction to determine compliance with the tax sale proceeding conducted by the City Government of Quezon City.
• Verification and Non-Forum Shopping: Whether Ventura complied with the requirements on verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
• Collateral Attack on Title: Whether the petition constitutes a collateral attack on Orlina's certificate of title.
• Jurisdiction over the Person of Ventura: Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Ventura.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Yes. Certiorari was proper notwithstanding the loss of appeal, because the RTC Decision was void for having been rendered in violation of Ventura's right to due process, and a void judgment may be attacked at any time.
• Jurisdiction over Tax Sale Validity: Not reached as a separate issue. The Court's disposition focused on the nullity of the RTC proceedings for lack of due process, directing the RTC to conduct further proceedings.
• Verification and Non-Forum Shopping: Yes. The verification and certification signed by Ventura's sons constituted substantial compliance, Ventura being residing in the United States at the time, which was a justifiable reason for substitution.
• Collateral Attack on Title: No bar applies. Because the RTC Decision was void ab initio for lack of due process, it could be attacked collaterally; a void judgment creates no rights and confers no title.
• Jurisdiction over the Person of Ventura: No. The RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over Ventura's person, there being no proof of personal service, substantial service, or service by publication of the notice of hearing and copy of the petition upon her.

• Propriety of Certiorari: While the general rule is that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and that the doctrine of immutability of judgment bars modification of final judgments, exceptions exist. Among these exceptions are void judgments and cases where the order is a patent nullity. A judgment rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at any time, directly or collaterally. In Montoya vs. Varilla, the Court allowed an appeal filed beyond the reglementary period because the proceedings were conducted without notice, rendering the judgment null and void. Similarly, in Philippine National Bank vs. Spouses Perez, the Court affirmed the CA's grant of certiorari even when the challenged RTC decision had become final and executory, because the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing ex parte presentation of evidence without due notice. Applying these precedents, the RTC Decision in the instant case was void for having been rendered without notice to Ventura, and certiorari was therefore proper despite the finality of the judgment.

• Jurisdiction over Tax Sale Validity: The Court did not resolve this issue independently, as the nullity of the RTC proceedings for lack of due process was dispositive. The disposition directed the RTC to conduct further proceedings on the petition for approval of the final bill of sale, implicitly recognizing the RTC's authority to entertain the petition provided due process is observed.

• Verification and Non-Forum Shopping: The verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by Ventura's sons rather than by Ventura herself. At the time the RTC Decision was rendered and when demands to vacate were made on her sons, Ventura was already residing in the United States, as stated in the Special Power of Attorney attached to the certification and petition filed before the CA. This constituted a justifiable reason for her sons to substitute her. Rules of procedure are tools to facilitate, not hinder, the administration of justice, and for justifiable reasons, a liberal application thereof may be adopted.

• Collateral Attack on Title: Orlina contended that questioning the tax sale in the petition for approval of the final bill of sale constituted a collateral attack on his title, which had already been transferred to his name. The Court rejected this argument. Because the RTC Decision was rendered in violation of Ventura's right to due process, it was void ab initio. A void judgment is no judgment at all; it cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. The nullity of the RTC Decision carried with it the nullity of all acts implementing it, including the issuance of TCT No. 004-2012010324 in Orlina's name. A void judgment may be attacked at any time directly or collaterally.

• Jurisdiction over the Person of Ventura: The action filed by Orlina was a petition seeking cancellation of Ventura's title and issuance of a new one under his name, brought under Sections 75 and 108 of P.D. No. 1529, which is an action in rem. While jurisdiction over the parties in an action in rem is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, notice to all parties in interest is nonetheless required to satisfy the requirements of due process. The records showed that only the Register of Deeds, the Land Registration Authority, the DENR Secretary, the OSG, and the City Prosecutor were notified. There was no proof that Ventura was personally served with the notice of hearing and copy of the petition, nor proof of substantial service or service by publication. Orlina's claim that notices were sent to Ventura was undermined by his reference to three different addresses in his petition, and by his having sent court documents to still another address (201 EDSA, Baesa, Caloocan City), which was not Ventura's true address. These circumstances belied Orlina's claims of good faith. Even assuming honest mistake, the fact remained that Ventura was not properly notified, constituting a denial of due process. The order of general default and the RTC Decision granting the petition were therefore void.

• Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment and Its Exceptions — A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect. Exceptions include: (1) correction of clerical errors; (2) nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice; (3) void judgments; and (4) circumstances transpiring after finality rendering execution unjust and inequitable. The Court applied the void judgment exception, holding that the RTC Decision was void for having been rendered without due process.

• Certiorari Not a Substitute for Lost Appeal — Exceptions — While certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, the Court has allowed resort to certiorari despite the availability or prior availability of appeal where: (1) the appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy; (2) the orders were issued in excess of or without jurisdiction; (3) for special considerations such as public welfare or public policy; (4) in criminal actions where rebuttal evidence is rejected and acquittal would leave no remedy; (5) the order is a patent nullity; and (6) the decision will avoid future litigations. The Court applied exceptions (2) and (5), the RTC having acted without jurisdiction over Ventura due to denial of due process.

• Void Judgment — A judgment rendered without due process is void ab initio. It is no judgment at all, cannot be the source of any right or the creator of any obligation, and all acts performed pursuant to it have no legal effect. It may be attacked at any time, directly or collaterally, by means of a separate action or by resisting such decision in any action or proceeding where it is invoked. The Court applied this doctrine to nullify the RTC Decision and all acts implementing it, including the issuance of the new TCT in Orlina's name.

• Due Process in In Rem Proceedings — While jurisdiction over the parties in an action in rem is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, notice to all parties in interest is nonetheless required to satisfy the requirements of due process. The Court applied this principle to the proceedings under Sections 75 and 108 of P.D. No. 1529, holding that Ventura's failure to receive notice rendered the proceedings void.

• "where there is an apparent denial of the fundamental right to due process, a decision that is issued in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction, in view of the cardinal precept that in cases of a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi connecting denial of due process to lack of jurisdiction and the void character of the resulting judgment.

• "a judgment or decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at any time directly or collaterally by means of a separate action, or by resisting such decision in any action or proceeding where it is invoked for such judgment or decision is regarded as a 'lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever it exhibits its head.'" — This is the canonical formulation of the doctrine on void judgments frequently cited in Philippine jurisprudence, establishing the principle that due process violations render judgments susceptible to attack at any time and in any manner.

• "While jurisdiction over the parties in an action in rem is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, it is nonetheless required to satisfy the requirements of due process." — This passage defines the due process requirement in in rem proceedings under the Property Registration Decree, clarifying that although personal jurisdiction is not jurisdictional in such actions, notice remains constitutionally indispensable.

• Montoya vs. Varilla, 595 Phil. 507 (2008) — Controlling precedent followed. The Court held that proceedings conducted without notice violated the party's right to due process, rendering the judgment null and void, and that the party was not barred from filing an appeal beyond the reglementary period because the violation deprived the tribunal of jurisdiction. Applied directly to the instant case to justify allowing certiorari despite finality of the RTC Decision.

• Philippine National Bank vs. Spouses Perez, 667 Phil. 450 (2011) — Controlling precedent followed. The Court affirmed the CA's grant of certiorari even when the challenged RTC decision had become final and executory, because the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing ex parte presentation of evidence without due notice. Applied to the instant case to support the proposition that certiorari lies despite finality where due process was violated.

• Salva vs. Valle, 707 Phil. 402 (2013) — Followed. The Court excused the filing of an appeal beyond the reglementary period and allowed liberal application of procedural rules in exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest of justice, reinforcing the principle that procedural rules are tools to facilitate, not hinder, the administration of justice.

• Gomeco Metal Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 793 Phil. 355 (2016) — Cited for the general propositions that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and that final judgments are immutable and unalterable, establishing the general rule against which the exceptions were applied.

• Section 75, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Governs the application for a new certificate of title upon expiration of the redemption period after registered land has been sold. Provides that the purchaser may petition the court for the entry of a new certificate of title, and that before such entry, the registered owner may pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul the proceedings. The Court identified Orlina's petition as brought under this provision, characterizing it as an action in rem requiring notice to all parties in interest to satisfy due process.

• Section 108, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Governs amendments and alterations of certificates of title by court order, requiring notice to all parties in interest. The Court noted that Orlina's petition was also brought under this provision, reinforcing the in rem character of the proceeding and the necessity of notice to Ventura.

Leonen, Gesmundo, Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ., concurred.