THIRD DIVISION Orlina.

4Consequently, Orlina filed a petition for the approval

of the final bill of sale, cancellation of the original and
10. G.R. No. 227033, December 03, 2018 duplicate copy of TCT No. 272336, and issuance of a new
certificate of title for the subject property in his favor. On
REYNALDO E. ORLINA, Petitioner, v. CYNTHIA
September 28, 2011, the RTC issued an Order setting the case
VENTURA, REPRESENTED BY HER SONS ELVIC JHON
for hearing on December 7, 2011 and directed the service of
HERRERA AND ERIC VON HERRERA, Respondents.
notice of hearing, together with a copy of the petition and its
DECISION annexes upon the following: the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City, the Land Registration Authority of Quezon
PERALTA, J.: City, the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, he Office of the Solicitor General, and the
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under
City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The RTC also ordered the
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside
posting of a notice of hearing at the main entrance of the
the Decision1 dated October 26, 2015 and the
Quezon City Hall, the bulletin board of the RTC, and at the
Resolution2 dated September 14, 2016 of the Court of
site of the subject property. During the initial hearing on
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 133837 which annulled and
December 7, 2011, Orlina marked several documents to
set aside the Decision3 dated May 14, 2012 of the Regional
establish compliance with the jurisdictional requirements.
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 215, which in turn,
There being no opposition filed, the RTC issued an order of
approved the Final Bill of Sale issued by the City Treasurer
general default and granted Orlina's motion to present
of Quezon City in favor of petitioner Reynaldo E. Orlina,
evidence ex-parte.5
declared Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 272336 in the
name of respondent Cynthia Ventura null and void, and
On May 14, 2012, the RTC rendered a Decision the
ordered the issuance of a new title covering the subject
dispositive portion of which reads:
property in the name of Orlina.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, pursuant to Section 75
The antecedent facts are as follows: of P.D. No. 1529, the Final Bill of Sale issued by the City
Treasurer of Quezon City in favor of petitioner Reynaldo
The property involved in the present controversy is a 406
Orlina is hereby APPROVED and CONFIRMED,
square meter parcel of land located in Baesa, Quezon City
PROVIDED, however, that the proceeds of the sale in excess
and covered by TCT No. 272336 in the name of Ventura, and
of the delinquent tax, including the interest due thereon, and
likewise, covered by Tax Declaration No. E-004-01387. From
the expenses of the sale, in the total amount of P363,869,75,
1998 to 2008, Ventura had been delinquent in the payment of
shall be remitted to Cynthia F. Ventura, the registered owner
its real property taxes amounting to P27,471.18, inclusive of
of the real property, or person having legal interest therein.
penalty charges, failing to pay despite notice of such
Further, TCT No. 272336 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon
delinquency. As a result, the City Treasurer of Quezon City
City issued in the name of Cynthia F. Ventura is hereby
issued a warrant subjecting the property to levy. To satisfy
declared NULL AND VOID.
the tax delinquency, the property was then advertised for
sale at a public auction by posting a notice at the main Upon finality of this Decision, the Register of Deeds of
entrance of the Quezon City Hall, as well as in a public and Quezon City is ordered to cause the issuance of a new title
conspicuous place in the barangay where the property was covering the property subject of this petition in the name of
located, and by publication in a newspaper of general REYNALDO ORLINA.
circulation. On April 2, 2009, a public auction was conducted
during which Orlina turned out to be the highest bidder Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the following:
with a bid price of P400,000.00. The corresponding
Certificate of Sale was issued in his favor on even date. After The Regist[er] of Deeds - Quezon City;
the lapse of the one (1)-year period of redemption without The Administrator, LRA - Quezon City;
Ventura redeeming the subject property, the City Treasurer The Secretary, DENR - Quezon City;
of Quezon City issued a Final Bill of Sale to The Office of the Solicitor General - Makati City; and

Civil Procedure Page 1

The City Prosecutor - Quezon City. assigning the following grounds:

SO ORDERED.6
I.
Pursuant to the Decision quoted above, TCT No. 004-
2012010324 was issued in favor of Orlina, who subsequently
filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ of WHETHER OR NOT THE REMEDY OF CERTIORARI CAN
possession, which was granted by the RTC in an Order BE AVAILED OF BY THE HEREIN [RESPONDENT]
dated February 27, 2013. DESPITE LOSS OF REMEDY OF APPEAL.

II.
It was only at this point that Ventura filed an omnibus
motion seeking a reconsideration of the RTC's Decision. She
argued that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over her WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
person, thus, depriving her of her .right to due process. She THAT APPROVED THE FINAL BILL OF SALE HAS
also filed an urgent motion for reconsideration of the Order JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE COMPLIANCE
granting the issuance of the writ of possession, praying for WITH THE TAX SALE PROCEEDING CONDUCTED BY
the suspension of its implementation pending resolution of THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY.
the omnibus motion. In denying both motions, however, the
RTC held that the reliefs sought by Ventura are proper to be III.
raised and taken up in a separate action and not in a case
before it, which is already decided and has become final. 7On
October 26, 2015, however, the CA annulled and set aside WHETHER OR NOT THE [RESPONDENT] COMPLIED

the Decision of the RTC and all subsequent proceedings WITH [THE] REQUIREMENTS ON VERIFICATION AND

taken in relation thereto. It held that there was no proof that CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING.

Ventura was served with notices of the proceedings before

IV.
the trial court. As a consequence of this violation of her
constitutional right to due process, said court did not acquire
jurisdiction over her person. Thus, the CA disposed of the WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION IS A COLLATERAL
case as follows: ATTACK ON THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OF THE
HEREIN [PETITIONER].

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is V.

GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated 14
May 2012 and all proceedings, resolutions, orders and other
issuances are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF
The Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby ORDERED HEREIN [RESPONDENT].9
to CANCEL TCT No. 004-2012010324 issued in the name of
First, Orlina argues that the petition for certiorari filed by
private respondent Reynaldo Orlina as a consequence of the
Ventura before the CA should not have been allowed, since
execution of the disposition in LRC Case No. Q-32175(11)
it is not a substitute for her lost appeal. At the time she filed
and to REINSTATE TCT No. 272336 in the name of
her Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration questioning the
petitioner Cynthia Ventura.
Decision of the RTC, the same had already become
final. Second, he maintains that the RTC that approved the
SO ORDERED.8
final bill of sale had jurisdiction to determine the validity of
Upon the denial of Orlina's motion for reconsideration, he the tax delinquency auction sale proceeding conducted by
elevated the matter before the Court via the instant petition, the City Government of Quezon City. Any question Ventura
may raise as regards the said sale must be raised in an
entirely separate proceeding and not in the petition for

Civil Procedure Page 2

approval of final bill of sale filed by Orlina. Third, Orlina namely: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-
assails the verification and certification of non-forum called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to
shopping filed by Ventura accompanying her petition before any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever
the CA on the ground that the same was signed by her sons circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision
and not by Ventura herself. According to him, there is no rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. Similarly,
justifiable reason for Ventura's sons to substitute her. while it is doctrinally entrenched that certiorari is not a
Neither was there any mention of an authority to sign said substitute for a lost appeal, the Court has allowed the resort
verification in her behalf in the Special Power of Attorney to a petition for certiorari despite the existence of or prior
attached to the petition filed before the CA. Fourth, granting availability of an appeal, such as: (1) where the appeal does
the existence of irregularities in the tax delinquency sale, the not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy; (2) where
same must be determined in a separate case and not in the the orders were also issued either in excess of or
instant petition for approval of final bill of sale as the same is without jurisdiction; (3) for certain special considerations,
tantamount to a collateral attack on Orlina's title. This is as public welfare or public policy; (4) where in criminal
because the subject property was already transferred in his actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the
name. It cannot simply be altered, modified, or cancelled, prosecution as, in case of acquittal, there could be no
except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. Finally, remedy; (5) where the order is a patent nullity; and (6)
Orlina insists that the RTC duly acquired jurisdiction over where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future
her person. Contrary to the findings of the CA that Ventura litigations.13Thus, in many instances, the Court found it
was not served with any notice of the proceedings, he and necessary to apply the exception rather than the general rule
the City Treasurer of Quezon City actually sent the warrant above. In Montoya v. Varilla,14 for example, the Court
of levy and notices to Ventura using the address stated in the therein held that since the proceedings dismissing Montoya
tax declaration and certificate of title of the subject property. from service were conducted without notice to him, the
In addition to this, the posting requirement was, likewise, judgment of dismissal was rendered in violation of his right
complied with when the order of the trial court was posted to due process. As such, even if his appeal thereof was filed
at the site where the property is located. Thus, Ventura was beyond the period provided by law, Montoya was not
sufficiently accorded due process and any accusation of barred from filing the same because the violation of his
malice on the part of Orlina is negated. Ventura only has constitution right deprived the regional director of
herself to blame for her belated participation in the jurisdiction over his case thereby rendering the judgment
proceeding which has already attained finality. null and void. Likewise, in Salva v. Valle, the Court
excused the fact that the appeal filed by Valle was beyond
We rule in favor of Ventura. the reglementary period and allowed the liberal application
of the rules of procedure for perfecting appeals in
As a general rule, the perfection of an appeal in the manner exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest of
and within the period permitted by law is not only justice. While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be
mandatory but also jurisdictional, and the failure to perfect faithfully and even meticulously observed, courts should not
the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair
10
executory.  As such, it has been held that the availability of the proper administration of justice. Thus, if the rules are
an appeal is fatal to a special civil action for certiorari for the intended to ensure the orderly conduct of litigation, it is
11
same is not a substitute for a lost appeal.  This is in line with because of the higher objective they seek, which is the
the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of protection of substantive rights of the parties. In like
judgment under which a decision that has acquired finality manner, the Court, in Philippine National Bank (PNB) v.
becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be Spouses Perez,15 did not hesitate in affirming the ruling of
modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to the CA which granted PNB's petition for certiorari even
correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it with the existence of the remedy of appeal and even if the
be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest challenged RTC decision had already become final and
Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must executory and was, in fact, already the subject of a writ of
12
immediately be struck down. But like any other rule, the execution. There, PNB sought to foreclose the mortgaged
doctrine of immutability of judgment has exceptions, properties of the Spouses Perez when they defaulted on their

Civil Procedure Page 3

financial obligations. Refusing to admit their obligation, the before the Court alone, he refers to three (3) different
spouses filed an action to release the mortgaged properties addresses where notices were allegedly sent. In page 13
and to annul the sheriffs notice of extra-judicial sale; among thereof, he categorically states that "it cannot be denied and,
others. When the trial court set the case for hearing, it failed in fact, admitted by the petitioner-appellee (Ventura) that its
to issue a proper notice of pre-trial to PNB. Consequently, address is in No. 201 Quirino Highway, Baesa, Quezon
PNB failed to attend the hearing. The trial court then City."17 But in page 18, Orlina provides that "it is very clear
allowed the Spouses Perez to present their evidence ex- in the Tax Declaration of Real Property that the address of
parte and eventually rendered judgment in favor of the the (sic) Cynthia Ventura is 201 Baesa, Caloocan
spouses enjoining PNB from foreclosing their properties. City."18 In page 19, moreover, he again makes mention of yet
Nevertheless, the Court therein ruled that the trial court another address in saying that "the certificate of posting of
committed grave abuse of discretion when it allowed the the court interpreter dated October 4, 2011 shows that the
spouses to present evidence ex-parte without due notice to Order of the Honorable Court dated September 28, 2011 was
PNB. This lack of notice of pre-trial rendered all subsequent posted at No. 201 Baesa, Balintawak, Quezon City."
proceedings null and void. Hence, the CA was correct in not Furthermore, as Ventura points out, Orlina sent out notices
dismissing the petition for certiorari and ordering the titles and other court documents to different addresses. For one,
issued in favor of the spouses to revert back to he sent his Demand to Vacate to 201 Quirino Highway,
PNB.16Similarly, in the instant case, the trial court failed to Baesa, Quezon City, which is actually the true address of
serve Ventura with a notice of hearing and a copy of the Ventura and her heirs. But on other occasions, however,
petition with its annexes. As aptly found by the CA, there Orlina's Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of
was no proof that Ventura was personally served with said Possession, as well as his Petition for the Approval of Bill of
notice. Neither was there proof of substantial service or even Sale, were both addressed to 201 EDSA, Baesa, Caloocan
service by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. City. To the Court, these circumstances belie Orlina's claims
The records of the present case reveal that only the following of good faith. But even if We assume that he sent notices to
were notified: the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, the the different addresses by mere honest mistake and in good
Land Registration Authority of Quezon City, the Secretary of faith, believing said addresses to be true, the fact remains
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the that Ventura was, indeed, not properly notified of the instant
Office of the Solicitor General, and the City Prosecutor of proceedings. Verily, this fact alone is a denial of her right to
Quezon City. On this matter, Orlina insists that he and the due process which the Court deems necessary to correct.
City Treasurer of Quezon City actually sent the warrant of Time and again, the Court has held that where there is an
levy and notices to Ventura using the address stated in the apparent denial of the fundamental right to due process, a
tax declaration and certificate of title of the subject property. decision that is issued in disregard of that right is void for
In addition, the posting requirement was, likewise, complied lack of jurisdiction,19 in view of the cardinal precept that in
with when the order of the trial court was posted at the site cases of a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are
where the property is located. The Court, however, finds ousted from their jurisdiction. This violation raises a serious
said contention unacceptable. First, the notices allegedly jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or
sent to Ventura were made in a separate and distinct disregarded at will. Thus, it is well settled that a judgment or
proceeding, specifically, the tax sale. Nowhere in the records decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and
of the case, however, did Orlina show that Ventura was duly may be attacked at any time directly or collaterally by means
notified of the instant proceeding for the approval of the of a separate action, or by resisting such decision in any
final bill of sale, cancellation of the original and duplicate action or proceeding where it is invoked20 for such judgment
copy of TCT No. 272336, and issuance of a new certificate of or decision is regarded as a "lawless thing which can be
title for the subject property in Orlina's favor. treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever
it exhibits its head."21As the CA noted, the action filed by
Second, while Orlina persistently argues that notices were Orlina is a petition seeking the cancellation of Ventura's title
sent to Ventura, the validity and due execution of the same and the issuance of a new one under his name, brought
remain doubtful. The Court is curious as to why, in under the auspices of Sections 7522 and 10823 of Presidential
attempting to prove proper notification, Orlina makes Decree (P.D.) No. 1529; otherwise known as the Property
reference to different addresses. To illustrate, in his petition Registration Decree, which is evidently an action in rem.

Civil Procedure Page 4

While jurisdiction over the parties in an action in rem is not
a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, it is SO ORDERED.
nonetheless required to satisfy the requirements of due
process.24

In view thereof, We find that the CA aptly held that the

order of the RTC of general default, allowing Orlina to
adduce evidence ex parte, is void for violating Ventura's
right to due process. Similarly, the May 14, 2012 Decision of
said trial court, which granted Orlina's petition for approval
of deed of sale and the transfer of the titles in his name, and
all subsequent orders issued pursuant to the said judgment
are also null and void. It has been held in the past that 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. Necessarily, it follows that the nullity of
the RTC Decision carries with it the nullity of all acts done
which implemented the same. This includes the issuance of
the new TCT No. 004-201201324 in the name of Orlina. 25s for
Orlina's belated attempt at refuting Ventura's allegation of
denial of due process, We find that the fact that the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping
accompanying the petition before the CA was signed by her
sons and not by Ventura herself should not affect the
substantive findings of the present case. It must be noted
that at the time when the subject RTC Decision was rendered
in violation of her right to due process and when demands
on her sons to vacate the premises, 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 constitutes justifiable reason for her sons
to substitute her in the instant case. As We previously
mentioned, rules of procedure are tools to facilitate and not
hinder the administration of justice and, thus, for justifiable
reasons, may adopt a liberal application thereof.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition

is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 26, 2015
and Resolution dated September 14, 2016 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 133837
are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 215,
is DIRECTED to CONDUCT further proceedings with
dispatch on the Petition for the 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.

Civil Procedure Page 5