June 1959 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > June 1959 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-11058 June 30, 1959 - JULIAN M. MANANSALA v. LUCAS BARON, ET AL.
105 Phil 1051:
105 Phil 1051:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-11058. June 30, 1959.]
JULIAN M. MANANSALA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUCAS BARON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
Leodegario S. Alba, Guevarra & Flores and Donata Q. Manansala for Appellant.
Jose P. Fausto for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. TAX SALE; TAX DEED MENTIONED IN SECTION 71 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 409. — A parcel of land in the City of Manila was forfeited to the Government for failure of the registered owner to pay the realty tax. Within one year from date of forfeiture another person appearing in city assessment rolls as the owner, redeemed the property to prevent the loss of whatever right he might have in it, and a "certificate of repurchase" was issued to him by the City Treasurer. Held: Such certificate is not the tax deed mentioned in Section 71 of Republic Act No. 409 which must be "in form and effect sufficient to convey to the purchaser so much of the real estate against which the taxes have been assessed as has been sold, free from all aliens of any kind whatsoever, and the deed shall succinctly recite all the proceedings upon which the validity of the sale dependents." The tax deed contemplated in the said section is that issued to a third person who buys the property at the public sale after the owner or year from the date of sale. Hence the redemption acquired no valid title to the property.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN APPLIES. — Section 77, Republic Act No. 409 applies when it is the owner of the land himself who assails the validity of the tax sale to recover the property sold to a third person or forfeited to the City of Manila and not when the property has not been lost or sold to a third person but redeemed by another in behalf of the true owner and the redemptioner claims ownership over it by virtue of his redemption.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN APPLIES. — Section 77, Republic Act No. 409 applies when it is the owner of the land himself who assails the validity of the tax sale to recover the property sold to a third person or forfeited to the City of Manila and not when the property has not been lost or sold to a third person but redeemed by another in behalf of the true owner and the redemptioner claims ownership over it by virtue of his redemption.
D E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint (civil No. 27852). The facts are not disputed, the appellant having signified his intention to raise questions of law principally and questions of fact incidentally. In his brief, the appellant does not question the finding of fact of the trial court.
This case involves the ownership of a parcel of land and the improvements existing thereon consisting of a two-story building of strong materials situated at Nos. 601 & 603 Isabel (Corner F. Jocson Streets, Sampaloc, Manila, and more particularly described as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"PARCELA DE TERRENO NO. 14 Manzana No. 124 de la Subdivision de Solucan, con la casa de dos plantas de materiales fuertes, señalada con los Nos. 303 al 307 de la Calle Isabel. Linda por el SE, con la Calle Feliciano Jocson; por el SW, con la Calle Isabel, conteniendo una extension superficial de CIENTO OCHENTA Y SIETE METROS CUADRADO CON CINCUENTA DICIMETROS (187.50).
At the trial, the attorneys for both parties entered into the following partial stipulation of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. That they agree on the identify, location and description of the property in question as described in Par. 3 of the complaint and that they likewise agree on the identity of the parties, plaintiff and defendants;
"2. That the plaintiff paid to the City Treasurer of Manila the sum of P611.80 on April 2, 1949, under Official Receipt No. 63220-V certified copy of which receipt is hereto attached as Annex ‘A’; the sum of P850.00 on January 3, 1950, as per official receipt No. 380415-V, hereto attached as Annex ‘A-1’; and the sum of P368.49 on May 4, 1950, as per official receipt No. 528339-V, hereto attached as Annex ‘A-2’;
"3. That the property in question is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 63708, issued in the name of Marcelina David, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, from whom the latter inherited said property, which Transfer Certificate of Title is in the possession of the defendants; and
"4. That all other facts not covered by this stipulation of facts shall be covered by evidence which the parties may wish to adduce in court."cralaw virtua1aw library
It appears that the same parcel of land and its improvements were the subject-matter of the litigation in Civil Case No. 948 of this Court between Julian M. Manansala and Marcelina David, predecessor-in-interest of the herein defendants, in which said plaintiff; sought to annul two documents, the one a deed of sale and conveyance of said property and the other, a contract of lease and conveyance of said property and the other, a contract of lease and option to repurchase the same property, on the ground that they did not express the true agreement of the parties. During the pendency of said action, Marcelina David died and she was substituted by the herein defendants as her heirs. In (a) decision rendered by this Court on March 7, 1950, the defendants were absolved from the complaint and the plaintiff was ordered to vacate said property and to pay the former the sum of P96.00 a month as rent therefor, beginning to the defendants by the plaintiff. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on April 26, 1955. 1
It further appears that during the pendency of said civil case No. 948, in this Court and in the Court of Appeals, the land taxes for said property corresponding to the years 1945, 1946, 1947, and 1948, inclusive, were not paid, because of which, it was among those that were advertised in the Bagong Balita in its issues of March 2, 9 and 16, 1948m which were to be sold at public auction on April 2, 1948. However, at the public auction held on the date aforesaid, there was no bidder for said property.
On September 14, 1948, the plaintiff Julian M. Manansala, as the declared owner of said property in the tax rolls in the office of the City Treasurer of Manila, was notified by the latter that the same was forfeited to the City in the public auction sale conducted by him on April 2, 1948, and informed him that he had one year from the date of sale within which to redeem said property. On April 2, 1949, or before the expiration of said one year, plaintiff Julian M. Manansala entered into a compromise agreement (Exhibit "C’) with the City Treasurer of the City of Manila, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I hereby acknowledge to be indebted to the City Treasurer of Manila for real estate taxes and other charges due on my property at 405 Isabel and F. Jocson, Sampaloc, which was forfeited at the tax sale conducted by the office of the City Treasurer on April 2, 1948, in the total amount of P1,424.25, which I hereby promise to settle in the following manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The amount of P611.80 to be paid at this writing and the balance of P812.45, 30 days hereafter.
"I hereby further agree that should I fail to pay the amount of P812.45 on or before the time limit given the City Treasurer is given full authority to confiscate the said property and to take such action as he may deem necessary on the premise."cralaw virtua1aw library
On the same date, plaintiff paid to the City Treasurer the sum of P611.80 under Official Receipt No. 63220-V.
It seems, however, that the plaintiff failed to comply with said compromise agreement because on August 3, 1959, the City Treasurer invited his attention to his letter of May 10,1949, and to the compromise agreement signed by him of April 2, 1949, in connection with the payment of the balance of P812.45 which he promised to pay within 30 days from April 2, 1949, otherwise the City Treasurer would "proceed with the confiscation of the property in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila" (Exhibit "I"). On September 21, 1949, another demand was made upon the plaintiff by the City Treasurer, who gave him 10 days from his receipt of the letter within which to pay said balance "in order to avoid the outright confiscation of the property." On January 3, 1950, plaintiff paid to the City Treasurer the sum of P850.00 under Official Receipt No. 380415-V, and on May 4, 1950, he paid the balance of P368.49 under Official Receipt No. 528339-V. Upon his payment of the last amount, the City Treasurer issued in his favor a certificate of repurchase (Exhibit "A") which reads a follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"This is to certify that the land and improvements located at No. 405 Isabel and 251 F. Jocson (Lot 14, Block 124), forfeited to the City of Manila, at the public sale conducted by the undersigned, on April 2, 1948, has been repurchased by Mr. Julian M. Manansala.
"The amount of P1,828.49 representing taxes, penalties and costs, including interest, was paid under Official Receipts Nos. 63220, 380415 and 528339, dated April 4, 1949, January 3, 1950, and May 4, 1950, respectively."cralaw virtua1aw library
Plaintiff now alleges in his complaint that by virtue of said Exhibit "A", he "acquired and became the absolute legal owner" of said property. He proceeds upon the theory that when the property in question was advertised for sale at public auction for tax delinquency on April 2, 1949, and there was no bidder for it at said auction, said property was forfeited to the City of Manila; and that when the defendants and their predecessor-in-interest failed to exercise their right of redemption within the period prescribed by law, said forfeiture was rendered absolute and property passed to the ownership of the City of Manila.
Section 72, Republic Act. No. 409, provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
In case there is no bidder at the public sale of such realty who offers a sum sufficient to pay the taxes, penalties, and costs, the city assessor and collector shall declare the real estate forfeited to the city, and shall make, within two days thereafter, a return of his proceedings and the forfeiture, which shall be spread upon the records of his office. 1
Section 73 of the same Act provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Within one year from the date of such forfeiture thus declared the taxpayer, or anyone for him, may redeem said realty as above provided in cases where the same is sold. But, if the realty is not thus redeemed within the year, the forfeiture shall become absolute and the city treasurer shall execute a deed, similar in form as having the same effect as the deed required to be made by him in case of a sale, conveying the real estate to the city. The deed shall be recorded as required by law or other real estate titles and shall then be forwarded to the mayor for notation and return to the city treasurer who shall file the same and enter it in him records of property. 3
As found by the trial court, the property in question was declared in the name of the appellant for purposes of taxation. during the pendency of the case between him and the appellees’ predecessor-in-interest, the realty tax due on the property for the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 were not paid and for that reason the same was advertised for sale at public auction on 2 April 1948 in the Bagong Balita. As there was no bidder at the public sale, it was declared forfeited to the City of Manila. On 14 September 1948 the appellant was notified of that fact by the City Treasurer of Manila and that he had one year from the date of forfeiture within which to redeem the property. On 2 April 1949 the appellant entered into a compromise ‘agreement with the City Treasurer for the redemption of the property. After several extensions of time within which to pay the amounts due, the appellant finally made good his promise and undertaking On 9 May 1950 the City Treasure issued a "Certificate of Repurchase" in favor of the appellant. The appellant did not purchase the property at the public sale conducted on 2 April 1948, for nobody bid for it, but within one year from date of forfeiture he, as declared owner, redeemed the property to prevent the loss of whatever right he might have in it, which was then under litigation between him and the appellees’ predecessor-in-interest. As correctly held by the trial court Exhibit A is not the tax deed mentioned in section 71 of Republic Act No. 409, which must be "in form and effect sufficient to convey to the purchaser so much of the real estate against which the taxes have been assessed as has been sold, free from all liens of any kind whatsoever, and the deed shall succinctly recite all the proceedings upon which the validity of the sale depends." The tax deed contemplated in section 71 is that issued to a third person who buys the property at the public sale after the owner of anybody in his behalf has failed to redeem it within one year from the date of sale. To sustain the appellant’s contention would in effect nullify the final judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals holding that the appellee’s predecessors-in-interest was the owner of the property in question and the judgment of this Court in G. R. No. L-10223 on 29 August 1957 upholding the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The appellant contends that the appellees cannot assail the validity of the tax sale in his favor because they did not comply with the provisions of section 77, Republic Act No. 409, by paying into court the amount for which the real estate was sold together with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of sale to the time of the filing of the action. That section applies only when it is the owner of the land himself who assails the validity of the tax sale recover the property sold to a third person or forfeited to the City of Manila and not when, as in the case at bar, the property has not been lost or sold to a third person but redeemed by another in behalf of the true owner and the redemptioner claims ownership over it by virtue of his redemption.
However, considering that by redeeming the property in question from the City of Manila the appellant had prevented its loss to the prejudice of the appellees, he should be reimbursed by the appellees for whatever amount he had paid to the City of Manila for its redemption, with lawful interest from the time of payment to the City of Manila to the date of reimbursement to the Appellant.
With the foregoing modification, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Barrera, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, J., concurs in the result.
This case involves the ownership of a parcel of land and the improvements existing thereon consisting of a two-story building of strong materials situated at Nos. 601 & 603 Isabel (Corner F. Jocson Streets, Sampaloc, Manila, and more particularly described as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"PARCELA DE TERRENO NO. 14 Manzana No. 124 de la Subdivision de Solucan, con la casa de dos plantas de materiales fuertes, señalada con los Nos. 303 al 307 de la Calle Isabel. Linda por el SE, con la Calle Feliciano Jocson; por el SW, con la Calle Isabel, conteniendo una extension superficial de CIENTO OCHENTA Y SIETE METROS CUADRADO CON CINCUENTA DICIMETROS (187.50).
At the trial, the attorneys for both parties entered into the following partial stipulation of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. That they agree on the identify, location and description of the property in question as described in Par. 3 of the complaint and that they likewise agree on the identity of the parties, plaintiff and defendants;
"2. That the plaintiff paid to the City Treasurer of Manila the sum of P611.80 on April 2, 1949, under Official Receipt No. 63220-V certified copy of which receipt is hereto attached as Annex ‘A’; the sum of P850.00 on January 3, 1950, as per official receipt No. 380415-V, hereto attached as Annex ‘A-1’; and the sum of P368.49 on May 4, 1950, as per official receipt No. 528339-V, hereto attached as Annex ‘A-2’;
"3. That the property in question is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 63708, issued in the name of Marcelina David, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, from whom the latter inherited said property, which Transfer Certificate of Title is in the possession of the defendants; and
"4. That all other facts not covered by this stipulation of facts shall be covered by evidence which the parties may wish to adduce in court."cralaw virtua1aw library
It appears that the same parcel of land and its improvements were the subject-matter of the litigation in Civil Case No. 948 of this Court between Julian M. Manansala and Marcelina David, predecessor-in-interest of the herein defendants, in which said plaintiff; sought to annul two documents, the one a deed of sale and conveyance of said property and the other, a contract of lease and conveyance of said property and the other, a contract of lease and option to repurchase the same property, on the ground that they did not express the true agreement of the parties. During the pendency of said action, Marcelina David died and she was substituted by the herein defendants as her heirs. In (a) decision rendered by this Court on March 7, 1950, the defendants were absolved from the complaint and the plaintiff was ordered to vacate said property and to pay the former the sum of P96.00 a month as rent therefor, beginning to the defendants by the plaintiff. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on April 26, 1955. 1
It further appears that during the pendency of said civil case No. 948, in this Court and in the Court of Appeals, the land taxes for said property corresponding to the years 1945, 1946, 1947, and 1948, inclusive, were not paid, because of which, it was among those that were advertised in the Bagong Balita in its issues of March 2, 9 and 16, 1948m which were to be sold at public auction on April 2, 1948. However, at the public auction held on the date aforesaid, there was no bidder for said property.
On September 14, 1948, the plaintiff Julian M. Manansala, as the declared owner of said property in the tax rolls in the office of the City Treasurer of Manila, was notified by the latter that the same was forfeited to the City in the public auction sale conducted by him on April 2, 1948, and informed him that he had one year from the date of sale within which to redeem said property. On April 2, 1949, or before the expiration of said one year, plaintiff Julian M. Manansala entered into a compromise agreement (Exhibit "C’) with the City Treasurer of the City of Manila, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I hereby acknowledge to be indebted to the City Treasurer of Manila for real estate taxes and other charges due on my property at 405 Isabel and F. Jocson, Sampaloc, which was forfeited at the tax sale conducted by the office of the City Treasurer on April 2, 1948, in the total amount of P1,424.25, which I hereby promise to settle in the following manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The amount of P611.80 to be paid at this writing and the balance of P812.45, 30 days hereafter.
"I hereby further agree that should I fail to pay the amount of P812.45 on or before the time limit given the City Treasurer is given full authority to confiscate the said property and to take such action as he may deem necessary on the premise."cralaw virtua1aw library
On the same date, plaintiff paid to the City Treasurer the sum of P611.80 under Official Receipt No. 63220-V.
It seems, however, that the plaintiff failed to comply with said compromise agreement because on August 3, 1959, the City Treasurer invited his attention to his letter of May 10,1949, and to the compromise agreement signed by him of April 2, 1949, in connection with the payment of the balance of P812.45 which he promised to pay within 30 days from April 2, 1949, otherwise the City Treasurer would "proceed with the confiscation of the property in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila" (Exhibit "I"). On September 21, 1949, another demand was made upon the plaintiff by the City Treasurer, who gave him 10 days from his receipt of the letter within which to pay said balance "in order to avoid the outright confiscation of the property." On January 3, 1950, plaintiff paid to the City Treasurer the sum of P850.00 under Official Receipt No. 380415-V, and on May 4, 1950, he paid the balance of P368.49 under Official Receipt No. 528339-V. Upon his payment of the last amount, the City Treasurer issued in his favor a certificate of repurchase (Exhibit "A") which reads a follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"This is to certify that the land and improvements located at No. 405 Isabel and 251 F. Jocson (Lot 14, Block 124), forfeited to the City of Manila, at the public sale conducted by the undersigned, on April 2, 1948, has been repurchased by Mr. Julian M. Manansala.
"The amount of P1,828.49 representing taxes, penalties and costs, including interest, was paid under Official Receipts Nos. 63220, 380415 and 528339, dated April 4, 1949, January 3, 1950, and May 4, 1950, respectively."cralaw virtua1aw library
Plaintiff now alleges in his complaint that by virtue of said Exhibit "A", he "acquired and became the absolute legal owner" of said property. He proceeds upon the theory that when the property in question was advertised for sale at public auction for tax delinquency on April 2, 1949, and there was no bidder for it at said auction, said property was forfeited to the City of Manila; and that when the defendants and their predecessor-in-interest failed to exercise their right of redemption within the period prescribed by law, said forfeiture was rendered absolute and property passed to the ownership of the City of Manila.
Section 72, Republic Act. No. 409, provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
In case there is no bidder at the public sale of such realty who offers a sum sufficient to pay the taxes, penalties, and costs, the city assessor and collector shall declare the real estate forfeited to the city, and shall make, within two days thereafter, a return of his proceedings and the forfeiture, which shall be spread upon the records of his office. 1
Section 73 of the same Act provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Within one year from the date of such forfeiture thus declared the taxpayer, or anyone for him, may redeem said realty as above provided in cases where the same is sold. But, if the realty is not thus redeemed within the year, the forfeiture shall become absolute and the city treasurer shall execute a deed, similar in form as having the same effect as the deed required to be made by him in case of a sale, conveying the real estate to the city. The deed shall be recorded as required by law or other real estate titles and shall then be forwarded to the mayor for notation and return to the city treasurer who shall file the same and enter it in him records of property. 3
As found by the trial court, the property in question was declared in the name of the appellant for purposes of taxation. during the pendency of the case between him and the appellees’ predecessor-in-interest, the realty tax due on the property for the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 were not paid and for that reason the same was advertised for sale at public auction on 2 April 1948 in the Bagong Balita. As there was no bidder at the public sale, it was declared forfeited to the City of Manila. On 14 September 1948 the appellant was notified of that fact by the City Treasurer of Manila and that he had one year from the date of forfeiture within which to redeem the property. On 2 April 1949 the appellant entered into a compromise ‘agreement with the City Treasurer for the redemption of the property. After several extensions of time within which to pay the amounts due, the appellant finally made good his promise and undertaking On 9 May 1950 the City Treasure issued a "Certificate of Repurchase" in favor of the appellant. The appellant did not purchase the property at the public sale conducted on 2 April 1948, for nobody bid for it, but within one year from date of forfeiture he, as declared owner, redeemed the property to prevent the loss of whatever right he might have in it, which was then under litigation between him and the appellees’ predecessor-in-interest. As correctly held by the trial court Exhibit A is not the tax deed mentioned in section 71 of Republic Act No. 409, which must be "in form and effect sufficient to convey to the purchaser so much of the real estate against which the taxes have been assessed as has been sold, free from all liens of any kind whatsoever, and the deed shall succinctly recite all the proceedings upon which the validity of the sale depends." The tax deed contemplated in section 71 is that issued to a third person who buys the property at the public sale after the owner of anybody in his behalf has failed to redeem it within one year from the date of sale. To sustain the appellant’s contention would in effect nullify the final judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals holding that the appellee’s predecessors-in-interest was the owner of the property in question and the judgment of this Court in G. R. No. L-10223 on 29 August 1957 upholding the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The appellant contends that the appellees cannot assail the validity of the tax sale in his favor because they did not comply with the provisions of section 77, Republic Act No. 409, by paying into court the amount for which the real estate was sold together with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of sale to the time of the filing of the action. That section applies only when it is the owner of the land himself who assails the validity of the tax sale recover the property sold to a third person or forfeited to the City of Manila and not when, as in the case at bar, the property has not been lost or sold to a third person but redeemed by another in behalf of the true owner and the redemptioner claims ownership over it by virtue of his redemption.
However, considering that by redeeming the property in question from the City of Manila the appellant had prevented its loss to the prejudice of the appellees, he should be reimbursed by the appellees for whatever amount he had paid to the City of Manila for its redemption, with lawful interest from the time of payment to the City of Manila to the date of reimbursement to the Appellant.
With the foregoing modification, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Barrera, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, J., concurs in the result.
Endnotes:
1 One 24 June 1955 the Supreme Court denied Manansala’s petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals (G. R. No. L-9179). In G. R. No. L-10223, he sought to stop the execution of the judgment by filing a petition for certiorari and praying for a writ of preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court. On 29 August 1957 this Court denied his petition and dissolved the writ it had issued.
2. The same as section 2501 Revised Administrative Code.
3. The same as section 2502 same code.
