STA. LUCIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INC. - v - CITY OF PASIG
June 15, 2011 | LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Facts: Petitioner
Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc. (Sta. Lucia) is the registered owner
of several parcels of land, all of which indicated that the lots were located
in Barrio Tatlong Kawayan, Municipality of Pasig (Pasig). The
one of such parcels of land was consolidated with another which was situated
in Barrio Tatlong Kawayan, Municipality of Cainta, Province of
Rizal (Cainta). Upon Pasig’s petition to correct the location
stated in TCTs, the Land Registration Court ordered the amendment of the
TCTs to read that the lots were located in Barrio Tatlong Kawayan,
Pasig City.
Cainta filed a petition for the
settlement of its land boundary dispute with Pasig before the Antipolo
RTC. Pasig filed a Complaint against Sta. Lucia for the collection of
real estate taxes, including penalties and interests, on the lots, including
the improvements thereon. Sta. Lucia, in its Answer, alleged that it had been
religiously paying its real estate taxes to Cainta, just like what its
predecessors-in-interest did, by virtue of the demands and assessments made and
the Tax Declarations issued by Cainta on the claim that the subject properties
were within its territorial jurisdiction. Cainta was allowed to file its
own Answer-in-Intervention when it moved to intervene on the ground that its
interest would be greatly affected by the outcome of the case. Sta. Lucia and Cainta thereafter moved for the
suspension of the proceedings, and claimed that the pending petition in the
Antipolo RTC, for the settlement of boundary dispute between Cainta and Pasig,
presented a prejudicial question to the resolution of the case. The RTC denied
this in an Order. Holding that the TCTs were conclusive evidence as to its
ownership and location, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of Pasig. RTC ordered the issuance of a Writ of Execution
against Sta. Lucia.
Sta. Lucia filed a Petition
for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals to assail the RTCs order
granting the execution. It ruled in favor of Sta. Lucia. The Court of Appeals
added that the boundary dispute case presented a prejudicial question which
must be decided before x x x Pasig can collect the realty taxes due over the
subject properties. Sta. Lucia and Cainta filed an
appeal. The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision, wherein it agreed with the
RTCs judgment. Sta. Lucia and Cainta filed separate Petitions for Certiorari with
this Court.
Issue: Whether or not Sta. Lucia should continue paying its real property
taxes to Cainta, as it alleged to have always done, or to Pasig, as the
location stated in Sta. Lucias TCTs.
Ruling:
The
Local Government Unit entitled To Collect Real Property Taxes
-
Under Presidential Decree No. 464 or the Real Property Tax Code,
the authority to collect real property taxes is vested in the locality where
the property is situated. While a local government unit is authorized under
several laws to collect real estate tax on properties falling under its
territorial jurisdiction, it is imperative to first show that these
properties are unquestionably within its geographical boundaries.
-
This Court, in Mariano, Jr. v. Commission on Elections
said: The boundaries must be clear for
they define the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of a local government
unit. It can legitimately exercise powers of government only within
the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. Beyond these
limits, its acts
are ultra vires.
-
Clearly therefore, the local government unit entitled to collect
real property taxes from Sta. Lucia must undoubtedly show that the subject
properties are situated within its territorial jurisdiction; otherwise, it
would be acting beyond the powers vested to it by law.
Certificates
of Title as Conclusive
Evidence of Location
-
While we fully agree that a certificate of title is conclusive as
to its ownership and location, this does not preclude the filing of an action
for the very purpose of attacking the statements therein. In De Pedro
v. Romasan Development Corporation, we proclaimed that: They merely
confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot be used to
protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used as a shield for the
commission of fraud; neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the
expense of other.
-
Although it is true that Pasig is the locality stated in the TCTs
of the subject properties, both Sta. Lucia and Cainta aver that the metes and
bounds of the subject properties, as they are described in the TCTs, reveal
that they are within Caintas boundaries. This only means that there may be a
conflict between the location as stated and the location as technically
described in the TCTs. Mere reliance therefore on the face of the TCTs
will not suffice as they can only be conclusive evidence of the subject
properties’ locations if both the stated and described locations point to the
same area.
-
The Antipolo RTC, wherein the boundary dispute case between Pasig
and Cainta is pending, would be able to best determine once and for all the
precise metes and bounds of both Pasig’s and Cainta’s respective territorial
jurisdictions. The resolution of this dispute would necessarily ascertain
the extent and reach of each local government’s authority, a prerequisite in
the proper exercise of their powers, one of which is the power of
taxation.
The
Prejudicial Question Debate
-
The Pasig RTC should have held in abeyance the proceedings in
Civil Case, in view of the fact that the outcome of the boundary dispute case
before the Antipolo RTC will undeniably affect both Pasig’s and Cainta’s
rights. In fact, the only reason Pasig had to file a tax collection case
against Sta. Lucia was not that Sta. Lucia refused to pay, but that Sta. Lucia
had already paid, albeit to another local government unit. Evidently, had
the territorial boundaries of the contending local government units herein been
delineated with accuracy, then there would be no controversy at all.
-
In the meantime, to avoid further animosity, Sta. Lucia is
directed to deposit the succeeding real property taxes due on
the subject properties, in an escrow account with the Land Bank of the
Philippines.
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the
instant petition is GRANTED. The City of Pasig and the
Municipality of Cainta are both directed to await the judgment in their
boundary dispute case (Civil Case), to determine which local government unit is
entitled to exercise its powers, including the collection of real property
taxes, on the properties subject of the dispute.
