G.R. No. L-5301




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-5301 May 30, 1953 LOURDES T. PAGUIO, petitioner-appellant, vs. MARIA ROZADO DE RUIZ, oppositor-appellee. G. T Antaran for appellant. Pacifico de Ocampo for appellee. TUASON, J.: This appeals involves the validity of a sale of two parcels of land on Calle Andas, Intramuros, City of Manila, by the City of Treasurer for deliquency in the payment of taxes. These parcels belonged to Amparo Davila Vda. de Barrera and were assessed for taxation purposes in her name. On July 7, 1943, Mrs. Davila executed a deed donating them to four relatives one of whom was the present appellee. One of the donees having died after- wards, her heirs on January 29, 1946, made an extra-judicial settlement of the decedent's estate under the terms of which the appellee became the sole owner of the two lots. But notwithstanding these transfer of ownership, the parcels were allowed to continue in the original owners name in the real estate register. The tax on the property for the year 1947 not having been paid, and lots were advertised for sole to satisfy the tax, penalty and costs of sale, for the period of 30 days immediately preceeding November 27, the dates set for the sale. To this end notice was publish on October 28 and November 4 and 11 in Bagong Balita, a newspaper said to on General circulation, and posted at these places: the Court of First Instance in Intramuros, the Post Office, the Supreme Court, the San Andres Public Market and the Paco Public Market, all in Manila. Both parcel was awarded to Lourdes T. Paguio, the herein appellant, as the highest and only bidder for P100.67, which just covered the unpaid tax, penalty and costs, and the City Treasurer these and then issued to her the corresponding certificate of sale. But before the expiration of one year the City Treasurer mailed three letters, the last one being registered, addressed to Amparo Davila Vda. de Barrera at her recorded residence 202 Anda Street, Intramuros, Manila, in which it was stated that her property had been sold to the appellant subject to her right of redemption within one year from the date of sale. All these letters of course were returned the addressee having died and her former home at the above address having been destroyed, and no offer to redeem the property having made within the year prescribe for the purpose, the City Treasurer on may 11, 1949, delivered a final and absolute deed of conveyance to the purchaser. Possessed of the document and for the purpose of registering the same, Mrs. Paguio, on June 16, 1949, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of manila in G.L.R.O Cadastral Record No 154, Praying the Maria Rozado de Ruiz, the appellee, whom she claimed to have recently discovered to be the registered owner of the lots, be ordered to surrender to the Register of Deeds of her owner's duplicates and that should she fail to do so the said certificates be declared null and void and new ones issued in lieu thereof in her favor free from all and liens and incumbrances. Notified of these petition, Maria Rosado de Ruiz, through counsel, filled an opposition stating that she had not been notified on any tax deliquency on, or the sale of, the property either by the petitioner or the City Treasurer; that Amparo Davila Vda. de Barrera having ceased on the petitioner did not acquire any right there to under the action sale; that she was on actual possession of the property and could not be deprived for her rights and interest therein, without due process of law. The Court sustained Mrs. Ruiz' opposition on the authority of Lopez vs. Directors of Lands, 47 Phil. 23, and denied the petition. The case of Mercedes D. Valbuena et al. vs. Aurelio Reyes et al.,^* G.R. No. 48177, September 30, 1949, is decisive of this appeal. The fact are substantially identical and upon those facts the court, through Mr. Justice Montemayor, said: The death of Mercedes Valbuena in 1931 could, in no manner affect the validity of the tax sale conduct by the City of Treasurer in 1947. It was not necessary for the treasurer to notify her as deliquent taxpayer, of the intended sale of her property. It is true, that ordinarily, to enforce payment of deliquent real estate taxes, the Treasurer may seize and destrain personal property of the deliquent tax payer and sell the same to satisfy the delinquency. In the manner, the office of the Treasurer comes into contact and establishes direct relations with the taxpayer. Said tax payer comes to know that he or she is deliquent. However, in the City of Manila, under section 2498 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act 4173, the City Treasurer need not seize personal properties but may go directly against the deliquent real property. He need not personally notify the delinquent taxpayer. Under section 2497 of Revised Administrative Code, taxes and penalties assessed against realty shall constitute a lien enforceable against the property whether in the possession of the deliquent or any subsequent owner. All that the treasurer is required to do by the law is to advertise the property for sale, post notices in public places and in the district where the real estate lies and publish that advertisement or notice thereof in a newspaper of general circulation, once a week for three consecutive weeks. All this, the City of Treasurer has done. He even published in advertisement in three newspaper instead of only one as required by law. And he sent a personal notice to Mercedes Valbuena at her address appearing in his records notifying her that the period of redemption of the parcel of land that had been sold to Aurelio Reyes will expire on May 3, 1939, although been law does not require him to do so. So, the position taken by the plaintiffs appellants that the tax sale of the property in question was invalid because Mercedes Valbuena was not personally notified thereof, is clearly untenable. Much as we may sympathize with the appellee, this is one case where the courts have no option but to apply the law and give the petitioner the remedy seeks. The law is positive and leaves us no choice. It is harsh and drastic, but it is necessary means of insuring the prompt collection of taxes so essential to the life of the Government. Yet it was her gross negligence which brought about the appellee's predicament. Knowing that property to be subject to tax, the neglected to pay her obligation. Vigorous in her protest that she was not given opportunity to protect her rights, she at least neglected to put the Government in a position to allow her the opportunity. And this, notwithstanding the categorical mandate of section 2484 of the Revised Administrative Code, which she was presumed to know, and which make it "the duty of each person" acquiring real estate in the city of make a new declaration thereof, with the advertence that failure to do so shall make the assessment in the name of the previous owner "valid and binding on all persons instead, and for all purposes, as though the same had been assessed in the name of its actual owner." With regrets, we have to, as we hereby do, reverse the appealed order and direct that the petition of appellant be granted, without special finding as to costs. Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, and Labrador, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation