Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 48177. September 30, 1949. ]

MERCEDES D. VALBUENA ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AURELIO REYES ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Jose G. Pardo for Appellants.

Sancho Inocencio for appellee Aurelio Reyes.

Assistant City Fiscal Cornelio S. Ruperto for appellees City Treasurer and Register of Deeds.

SYLLABUS


1. TAXATION; TAX SALE; ENFORCEMENT OF PAYMENT OF DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE TAXES; PROCEDURE; GENERALLY. — Ordinarily, to enforce payment of delinquent real estate taxes, the treasurer may seize and distraint personal property of the delinquent taxpayer and sell the same to satisfy the delinquency. In this manner, the office of the treasure comes into contract and establishes direct relations with the taxpayer. Said taxpayer comes to know that he or she is delinquent.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROCEDURE IN THE CITY OF MANILA. — However, in the sale of real estate in the City of Manila to satisfy delinquent taxes, under the provisions of section 2497 and section 2498 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 4173, it is not necessary that the delinquent taxpayer or any one holding or owning the delinquent property be notified of the sale. It is sufficient for the validity of the tax sale that it is advertised that said advertisement is accomplished by posting a notice at the main entrance of the public building and in the public and conspicuous place in the district in which the property lies, and by publication in a newspaper.

3. ID.; ID.; PURCHASER’S DEED OF TAX SALE; AFTER EXPIRATION OF PERIOD OF REDEMPTION; REGISTRATION; PROCEDURE. — Under sections 78, 111, and 113 of Act No. 496 known as the Land Registration Law, where one acquires a valid deed or title to a property as a result of an execution sale, tax sale, or any sale to enforce a lien, after the expiration of the period, if any, allowed by law for redemption, when said new owner goes to court and the office of the register of deeds to have his deed recorded and have a new certificate of title issued in his name, it is sufficient for purposes of notifying the former owner to surrender his certificate of title and show cause why it should not be cancelled, that the notification is effected by mail or by publication as the court may order; and if despite such notification by mail or by publication, he fails to appear and surrender his certificate of title, the court may validly order the cancellation of that certificate of title and the issuance of a new one in favor of the new owner.


D E C I S I O N


MONTEMAYOR, J.:


This is an old case which appears to have been appealed to the Supreme Court sometime in the year 1941 but whose record was burned during the last world war. While there had been a reconstitution of the said record, particularly what appears to be a portion of the record on appeal, not all the pleadings and court orders, including the record of the evidence are available, although the more important and pertinent pleadings and orders are included in the reconstitution. For this reason, we have to gather the pertinent facts in this case not only from the record on appeal as partly reconstituted but also from the briefs of the parties, appellant and appellee.

Mercedes D. Valbuena, married to Felix Valbuena was the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in the City of Manila, particularly described in transfer certificate of title No. 24030 issued in her name. For non-payment of real estate taxes of said property assessed in the name of Mercedes D. Valbuena, for the years 1934, 1935 and 1936, the City Treasurer of Manila advertised said parcel for sale at public auction to satisfy the delinquency, including penalties and costs of the sale in accordance with the provisions of section 2498 of the Administrative Code as amended by Act 4173, "that is after posting notices in the City Hall and other public and conspicuous places including the district where the property lies, coupled with the publications for a period of thirty days. The said notice of sale was published once a week for three consecutive weeks, in local newspapers of general circulation, to wit: El Debate on March 31, 1937; The Tribune on April 7, 1937; and Mabuhay on April 14, 1937." (Page 1, Brief for Aurelio Reyes.)

The property was sold at public auction on May 3, 1937, to Aurelio Reyes for the sum of P140.

Prior to the expiration of the redemption period of one year as provided by law, the City Treasurer of Manila, "although not obliged by law to do so, addressed, mailed and sent a letter dated April 1, 1938 to plaintiff-appellant Mercedes Valbuena at her known address appearing in the file of the City Treasurer’s office at No. 462 Manuguit street, Manila, informing said appellant that the period of redemption of said property sold at public auction would expire on May 3, 1938." (Pages 1 and 2, Brief of Aurelio Reyes.)

Because the property was not redeemed within the period of one year, the office of the City Treasurer of Manila issued the corresponding deed of absolute sale in favor of Aurelio Reyes on May 31, 1938. Thereafter, pursuant to the provisions of section 78 of Act No. 496, Aurelio Reyes filed a motion under oath entitled "Aurelio Reyes, petitioner v. Mercedes D. Valbuena, respondent," in G. L. R. O. Record No. 11546 in the Court of First Instance of Manila, fourth branch, which had exclusive jurisdiction over land registration cases. The motion was set for hearing by the court but inasmuch as neither Mercedes Valbuena nor her heirs appeared on the date set for hearing, although a notice thereof by registered mail, had been sent to her last known residence, the court issued an order dated September 19, 1938, which was published in the newspaper "La Vanguardia," then a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, once a week, for three consecutive weeks, requiring Mercedes or her heirs to appear on the date set for the hearing on November 19, 1938, at 8:30 a.m., to bring with her the duplicate transfer certificate of title No. 24030 and to give her reasons, if any, why the prayer in the motion of Aurelio Reyes dated May 31, 1938, that on the basis of the deed of absolute sale executed in his favor by the City Treasurer of Manila, the court require Mercedes to deliver to the register of deeds the duplicate certificate of title for cancellation; that upon her failure to do so, said certificate of title be declared cancelled and that a new certificate of title be issued in favor of petitioner Aurelio Reyes, should not be granted.

Despite the publication of the order in the newspaper, neither Mercedes nor her heirs appeared before the court on November 19, 1938. Aurelio Reyes introduced his evidence to support his motion and thereafter, Judge Gervasio Diaz, presiding over the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, issued an order dated December 1, 1938, which because of its importance in this case is reproduced below:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"No habiendo comparecido Mercedes D. Valbuena ni sus herederos al ser llamado a vista eete asunto, a pesar de haber sido citados mediante publicacion en el periodico La Vanguardia, de circulacion general en Filipinas, una vez a la semana, por tres semanas consecutivas, de la orden de este jusgado de fecha 19 de septiembre de 1938, ordenando a dicha recurrida Mercedes D. Valbuena o sus herederos a que comparezcan ante el mismo el dia 19 de noviembre de 1938, a las 8:30 de la mañana, trayendo consigo el duplicado del certificado de transferencia de titulo No. 24030 expedido a su favor por el registrador de titulos de Manila y exponga sus razones, si algunas tuvieren, por que no se debe acceder a la mocion jurada presentada por el recurrente, de fecha 31 de mayo de la 1938, pidiendo que, de acuerdo con el articulo 78 de la Ley No. 496, y en virtud de la escritura de venta definitiva otorgada a su favor por el tesorero de la Ciudad de Manila por falta de pago de la contribucion territorial de la finca, con sus mejoras, descrita en la misma, se ordena a Mercedes D. Valbuena que entregue al registrador de titulos de Manila el duplicado del certificado de transferencia de titulo No. 24030 para su cancelacion, y, en caso contrario, se declare cancelado el mismo, ordenando, en su consecuencia, la expedicion de otro nuevo titulo en su lugar a favor del recurrente, y encontrando el juzgado fundada la peticion.

"Por la presente, se declara nulo y de ningun valor el duplicado del aludido certificado de transferencia de titulo No. 24030, y se ordena al registrador de titulos de Manila admita a inscripcion la citada escritura de venta definitiva otorgada por el Tesorero de la Ciudad de Manila a favor del recurrente Aurelio Reyes, de fecha 31 de mayo de 1938, ante el Notario Publico de esta capital Don Marcelino S. Cueto, y cancelase, en su consecuencia, de acuerdo con el articulo 78 de la Ley 496, el certificado de transferencia de titulo No. 24030 de la Oficina de su cargo, y expida en lugar del mismo otro nuevo en identicos terminos que el que se ha de cancelar pero a favor de Aurelio Reyes, mayor de edad, filipino, casado con Sabina Tobias, y residente en la calle Fraternidad No. 211, Pandacan, Manila, previo el pago de los derechos correspondientes. Asi se ordena.

"Manila, Filipinas, diciembre 1.
Top of Page