THIRD DIVISION
LEON REQUIRON,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
138280
March 10, 2003
-versus-
PATRICIA,
ERNESTO
AND ROSALINA, ALL SURNAMED SINABAN;CONRADO, GERTRUDES,
ELARIA, FEDELINA, FLORDELIZA AND EMETERIO,ALL SURNAMED
JAVELLO;
ALFREDO, MIGUEL, OFEMIA, AMBROCIO,NATIVIDAD AND
CONCHITA,
ALL SURNAMED NICOLAS,
Plaintiffs-Respondents. |
LEONCIA
JAVELLO
VDA. DE ASUELO, CECILIA, TEODOLFO,VILMA, JIMMY and
TERESITA, ALL SURNAMED ASUELO,
Defendants-Respondents.
|
D E C I S I
O N
PUNO, J.:
At issue in this Petition
for Review on
Certiorari[1]
is the validity of a public auction sale of a parcel of land measuring
fifty-six thousand six hundred seventy-two (56,672) square meters known
as Lot No. 915 and located at Barangay Rizal, Sagay Cadastre, Sagay,
Negros
Occidental.[2]
The factual antecedents are as follows:
Lot No. 915 was originally
co-owned by Catalino, Mariano, Cristina, Abundia, Segunda and Castor,[3]
all surnamed Javello.[4]
Cristina and Castor died without issue and by virtue of intestate
succession,
their rights and interests in the property were inherited by their
surviving
brothers and sisters, namely: Catalino, Mariano, Abundia, and Segunda.[5]
At the start of the legal dispute, all co-owners have already died.
Mariano
died in 1942 and was survived by plaintiffs-respondents Gertrudez,
Elaria,
Fedelina, Flordeliza and Emeterio, all surnamed Javello. Segunda died
in
1945 and was survived by plaintiffs-respondents Alfredo, Miguel,
Ofemia,
Ambrosio, Natividad and Honchita, all surnamed Nicolas. Catalino died
in
1957 and was survived by plaintiffs-respondents Juanito Javello and
Conrado
Javello. Juanito later died in 1971 without issue. Meanwhile, Abundia
died
in 1970 and was survived by plaintiffs-respondents Patricia, Rosalina,
and Ernesto, all surnamed Sinaban.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Since 1950, defendants-respondents
have been in possession of Lot No. 915 and executed acts of ownership
over
the property. They mortgaged the property to Alfredo Marañon
from
1952 to 1957,[7]
leased the same to Napoleon Sandoval from 1966-1971,[8]
and then to Anita Sandoval from 1971-1975.[9]
They also paid the land taxes.[10]
On May 29, 1972, plaintiffs-respondents
filed a Complaint[11]
to recover ownership and possession of Lot No. 915. The Complaint was
docketed
as Civil Case No. 946 and was raffled to the former Court of First
Instance
(CFI), now Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Branch VII,
presided
by Hon. Judge Jose L. Coscolluela.cralaw:red
Plaintiffs-respondents
claimed that in 1952, their predecessors-in-interest leased the
property
to Teofilo Asuelo, defendants-respondents' predecessor-in-interest, for
a period of fifteen (15) years.[12]
After the alleged verbal lease expired in 1967, plaintiffs-respondents
tried to recover the property but the defendants-respondents refused.
The
latter averred that on September 26, 1950, the late Catalino Javello
sold
his share of the property to Teofilo Asuelo and executed a Deed of
Absolute
Sale.[13]
On March 24, 1951, Abundia Javello, Castor Javello and the other heirs
sold their shares of the property to Teofilo Asuelo as evidenced by a
document
denominated as Declaration of Legal Heirs and Deed of Absolute Sale.[14]
Following Catalino's demise, the late Abundia Javello and herein
plaintiffs-respondents
Juanito, Diosdado, Gertrudes, Hilaria, Adelina, Emetrio and Felisa, all
surnamed Javello, and Natividad, Miguel and Ofelia, all surnamed
Nicolas,
confirmed the conveyances through a document denominated as Declaration
of Heirship and Confirmation of Sale.[15]
Plaintiffs-respondents
questioned the authenticity of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by
Catalino
Javello in favor of Teofilo Asuelo. They claimed that the late Catalino
Javello was illiterate and hence, could not have signed the instrument.[16]
Plaintiffs-respondents also disputed the authenticity of the
Declaration
of Heirship and Confirmation of Sale, alleging that the signatures and
thumbmarks appearing therein were forged.[17]
They also noted the discrepancies in the entries on the document; while
the Certified National Archives copy of the document revealed that the
Declaration of Heirship and Confirmation of Sale was supposed to have
been
notarized on August 8, 1965, the residence certificates of the persons
mentioned therein were dated 1966.[18]
Thus, petitioners-respondents prayed that said documents be declared
void,
and that they be returned to their possession of Lot No. 915. They also
prayed for the return of the amount of P48,000.00 representing the net
produce of the land from 1968 up to the institution of the case, the
amount
of P5,000.00 as actual damages, P5,000.00 as moral damages, and other
relief
and remedies available.[19]
Defendants-respondents
belied the claims of the plaintiffs-respondents. They presented the
Dactyloscopic
Reports of the Bacolod Police Department[20]
and the National Bureau of Investigation[21]
attesting to the genuineness of Emeterio Javello's thumbmark in the
Declaration
of Heirship and Confirmation of Sale. They also presented a Sworn
Declaration[22]
signed by Catalino Javello, in connection with his free patent
application,
to disprove his alleged illiteracy. Atty. Tereso Canoy, the notary
public
who acknowledged all the questioned documents, testified as to the
authenticity
of the signatures of the plaintiffs-respondents.[23]
He also explained that the alleged discrepancy in the Declaration of
Heirship
and Confirmation of Sale was a mere "clerical error."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the pendency
of Civil Case No. 946 in the former CFI of San Carlos, both parties
failed
to pay the assessed real property taxes on Lot No. 915 totaling
P1,317.98.
Consequently, the Municipal Treasurer of Sagay, Negros Occidental
offered
the property for public auction. The notice of sale, dated October 15,
1973, indicated that the auction was to be conducted on December 14,
1973
from 10:00 am - 12:00 noon.[24]
Upon learning of the
scheduled public auction, Mrs. Cecilia Asuelo Ferraro, one of the
defendants-respondents,
went to the office of Mr. Eduardo Mahilum, then the municipal treasurer
of Sagay, and offered a partial payment for the taxes due on Lot No.
915.
Mr. Mahilum suggested to Mrs. Ferraro to make the payment to the
provincial
treasurer. The latter went to the provincial treasurer's office as
suggested
and tendered the amount of P359.82 as partial payment for the tax
delinquency
on her property.[25]
As a result, the provincial treasurer of Negros Occidental, on December
12, 1973, sent a POLCOM Radio message to Mr. Mahilum, suspending the
scheduled
public auction sale of Lot No. 915, viz:
MESSAGE VIA POLCOM RADIO
December 12, 1973
MUNICIPAL TREASURER
SAGAY
MRS. CECILIA A. FERRARO
MADE PARTIAL PAYMENT OF P359.82 FOR LAND TAXES LOT 915 AND PROMISED TO
PAY SUBSTANTIALLY NEXT WEEK STOP MEANTIME SUSPEND SALE AT PUBLIC
AUCTION
OF SAID LOT END.cralaw:red
Sent by:
(SGD.) TIRSO T. SANTILLAN
Provincial Treasurer[26]
On that same day, December
12, 1973, petitioner went to the office of Mr. Mahilum, and expressed
his
intention to participate in the public bidding.[27]
He tendered the amount of P1,531.17 covering the unpaid real property
taxes
on Lot No. 915 and other costs.[28]
The municipal treasurer accepted the petitioner's payment but refused
to
give receipt since the auction was yet to be conducted in two days.[29]
Mr. Mahilum denied that he received the POLCOM message suspending the
public
auction.[30]
On December 14, 1973,
the announced date of the auction, no one made a bid on the property.[31]
On April 1, 1974, plaintiffs-respondents sold the property to the
petitioner.[32]
On March 21, 1975, the municipal treasurer issued a Certificate of
Repurchase
of Real Property After Sale to the petitioner in behalf of Catalino
Javello.[33]
On February 27, 1976, petitioner filed a Complaint-in-Intervention[34]
in Civil Case No. 946 claiming that he bought the property in the
public
auction. Petitioner argued that he obtained superior right of ownership
over the disputed property as neither of the parties endeavored to
repurchase
the property within the reglementary period. He prayed that he be
declared
the rightful owner of Lot No. 915, and be given the possession of the
property
to the exclusion of the plaintiffs-respondents and
defendants-respondents.
In addition, he asked the court to order defendants-respondents to pay
the sum of P15,000.00 a year from December 14, 1973 up to the time when
the property is given, and the sum of P3,000.00 as attorney's fees.[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 4, 1976, defendants-respondents
filed their Opposition to the Complaint-in-Intervention,[36]
claiming that herein petitioner has no legal right or interest in the
property.
They argued that the petitioner could not have validly purchased the
property
since he tendered payment two days earlier than the scheduled auction
sale.
Defendants-respondents contended that even assuming the validity of the
sale, petitioner's right was merely inchoate since the Final Bill of
Sale
has yet to be issued by the provincial treasurer. More,
defendants-respondents
argued that the petitioner was merely holding the property in behalf of
Catalino Javello as stated in the Certificate of Repurchase After Sale.cralaw:red
On May 11, 1976, Judge
Coscolluela issued an Order[37]
admitting petitioner's Complaint-in-Intervention. Thereupon, the
parties
presented their respective evidence.cralaw:red
Hearing on the case
was held in abeyance on October 29, 1982 due to the reorganization of
the
judiciary under Executive Order No. 864 and B.P. Blg. 129. The
case
was subsequently transferred to the RTC, Branch 60 of Cadiz City,
Negros
Occidental, presided by Judge Adelino H. Ledesma.cralaw:red
While hearing on Civil
Case No. 946 was on hold, the Land Registration Commission issued on
January
5, 1983, the decree of Lot No. 915 Sagay Cadastre in favor of the
plaintiffs-respondents.[38]
Subsequently on February 17, 1983, the Register of Deeds of Negros
Occidental
issued OCT No. N-1006, covering Lot No. 915, in the name of the
plaintiffs-respondents.[39]
On that same day, counsel for plaintiffs-respondents filed an
unverified
ex-parte Motion for Confirmation of Sale of Lot No. 915 in favor of the
petitioner with the RTC Branch 60 presided by Judge Ledesma.[40]
The Motion was approved by Judge Ledesma on February 28, 1983.[41]
On March 1, 1983, the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental cancelled
OCT No. N-1006 covering Lot No. 915 Sagay Cadastre issued in the name
of
the plaintiffs-respondents and issued TCT No. T-125258 in the name of
the
petitioner.[42]
On April 20, 1983, the petitioner mortgaged the property to the
Philippine
National Bank for the sum of P129,900.00.[43]
Defendants-respondents claimed that in all these instances, they were
not
given notice and consequently, were not able to defend their rights
over
the property.[44]
Hearing on Civil Case
No. 946 resumed on July 11, 1984. On September 12, 1986, Judge Abelino
H. Ledesma rendered a Decision[45]
sustaining the petitioner's Complaint-in-Intervention as an alleged
buyer
in the public auction sale of December 14, 1973. The lower court,
however,
did not resolve the respective claims of plaintiffs-respondents and
defendants-respondents.
Pertinent portion of the Decision reads:
The Court, after going
over the evidence of all the parties herein, finds that the weight of
the
evidence tends to show that the intervenor has acquired a superior
right
over the property in question after it had purchased the lot in
question
in an auction sale conducted in (sic) December 14, 1973 at Sagay,
Negros
Occidental, by paying the tax delinquency (Exhs. "2" and "2-A",
Intervenor);
and a "Certificate of Repurchase After Sale" had been issued he
declared
the property in his name (Exh. "4", Intervenor) and thereafter paid the
land taxes for 1975 to 1984 (Exhs. "5" to "5-k", inclusive, Intervenor).cralaw:red
Indeed, the plaintiffs
and the defendants, lost whatever rights they have on the property in
question
after the same was sold in the auction sale, and the lot in question
was
awarded to the Intervenor herein.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the Intervenor
and
against the plaintiffs and the defendants:
(1) Dismissing the plaintiffs'
complaint;
(2) Declaring the Intervenor
as the legal and the lawful owner of Lot 915, of Sagay Cadastre;
(3) Ordering all the
defendants to vacate the premises of Lot 915 of Sagay Cadastre and
deliver
the possession thereof to the Intervenor Leon Requiron;
(4) Ordering the defendant
to jointly pay the Intervenor P2,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
(5) Ordering the defendant
to pay the costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[46]
The defendants-respondents
appealed the lower court's Decision and raised the following issues to
the Court of Appeals: (1) whether a public auction sale was conducted
on
December 14, 1973, (2) assuming that a public auction was conducted,
whether
said auction sale was valid, (3) whether Leon Requiron bought the
property
in question for himself or in representation of the heirs of the late
Catalino
Javello, and (4) whether the document denominated as Declaration of
Heirship
and Confirmation of Sale dated August 8, 1966 is fictitious.[47]
Plaintiffs-respondents did not file an appeal.cralaw:red
On April 3, 1998, the
Court of Appeals issued a Decision nullifying the auction sale of Lot
915
and declaring defendants-respondents as lawful owners of the property,
viz:
WHEREFORE, the appealed
decision is hereby REVERSED and another one entered:
1. Declaring the auction
sale in favor of intervenor-appellee Leon Requiron as null and void.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Declaring defendants-appellants
Leoncio Asuelo, et al., as lawful owners of Lot 915 of Sagay Cadastre,
Negros Occidental.cralaw:red
3. Ordering the cancellation
of TCT No. T-125258 issued to intervenor-appellee Leon Requiron
in
favor of defendants-appellants, subject to payment of registration fees.cralaw:red
4. Ordering defendants-appellants
to reimburse intervenor-appellee the amount he paid for taxes on the
lot,
with 6% legal interest from date of filing of the
complaint-in-intervention.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[48]
Petitioner now comes
to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari raising, as the
lone
issue, the validity of the public auction sale covering Lot No. 915.[49]
He insists that the auction sale of Lot No. 915 on December 14, 1973
was
regularly and validly conducted.[50]
He claims that the payment he tendered on December 12, 1973 constitutes
an advanced bid for the property scheduled for public auction on
December
14, 1973. Since there was no other bidder on the property on the date
of
the public auction, petitioner submits that he was the winning bidder.cralaw:red
Petitioner questions
the finding of the Court of Appeals that the public auction was done
"in
defiance of the POLCOM Radio Message sent by Assistant Provincial
Treasurer
Tirso Santillan ordering the suspension of the auction sale"
considering
that Mr. Mahilum categorically denied receipt of such message, and that
the existence of the alleged message has not been proven. Petitioner,
thus,
prays that this Court reinstitute the lower court's decision declaring
him as the rightful owner of Lot No. 915.cralaw:red
The petition is without
merit.cralaw:red
Petitioner's involvement
in the dispute between plaintiffs-respondents and
defendants-respondents
rests on his claim that he bought Lot No. 915 at a public auction sale
conducted on December 14, 1973. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to
prove the regularity of all proceedings leading to the sale. He cannot
rely on the presumption of regularity accorded to ordinary
administrative
proceedings. The presumption of regularity does not apply to
administrative
proceedings resulting in the deprivation of a citizen or a taxpayer of
his property.[51]
We hold that petitioner
failed to discharge his burden. The law applicable at the time of the
alleged
public auction sale is Commonwealth Act No. 470,[52]
otherwise known as the "Assessment Law." Pres. Decree No. 464, also
known
as "The Real Property Tax Code" applied by the Court of Appeals took
effect
on June 1, 1974, some six months after the alleged sale. Nevertheless,
no substantial variance exists between the aforementioned laws
concerning
the required procedure in the conduct of public auction sale involving
real properties with tax delinquencies.cralaw:red
Commonwealth Act No.
470 empowers the provincial treasurer or his deputy to sell, at a
public
auction, real properties with tax delinquencies after posting an
advertisement
announcing the sale.[53]
However, the taxpayer may stay the scheduled public auction upon
tendering
payment of the tax delinquency before the date of auction. In case the
property owner does not pay the tax delinquency, the public auction
will
push through as scheduled, and the property will be awarded to the
highest
bidder. The provincial treasurer or his deputy is duty-bound to
accomplish
a report of the sale and furnish the provincial board a copy of the
report
within five days after the sale. Additionally, the provincial treasurer
or his deputy has to give the purchaser a certificate evidencing the
sale.[54]
However, in case there is no bidder at the public auction of the
delinquent
real property or if the highest bid for the amount is not sufficient to
pay the taxes, penalties and costs, the provincial treasurer may, in
his
discretion, buy the delinquent real property in the name of the
province.
In this case, he has to make a report of the sale to the provincial
board
and furnish the property owner a copy of the sale certificate.[55]
Within one year from
the date of sale, the delinquent taxpayer or his assign may repurchase
the property sold by paying to the provincial treasurer or his deputy
the
total amount of taxes, penalties and interests.[56]
In the event that the delinquent taxpayer does not repurchase the
property
within the one-year redemption period, the purchaser at the auction
shall
be given a Final Bill of Sale.[57]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
the required documents that would prove the claims of the petitioner
were
not presented as evidence. There was no Report of Sale to evidence the
fact that a public auction was held on December 14, 1973. The
petitioner
did not have a Certificate of Sale to attest the fact that he was the
winning
bidder in that public auction. Petitioner also did not possess a Final
Bill of Sale to prove that he has acquired a clean title to the
property
sold at the public auction.cralaw:red
To substantiate his
averments, petitioner offered the testimony of Mr. Mahilum, as follows:
Q: (ATTY.
VILLAMOR ON DIRECT EXAMINATION)
Mr. Mahilum, when Mr.
Requiron came to you on December 12, 1973 in connection with the public
auction for December 14, 1973 what did you tell him, if any?
A:
(MR. MAHILUM)
I told him there is
an amount as computed will be for the total taxes of the lot.cralaw:red
Q: After
telling him the amount of taxes for the lot that he was referring to,
did
he make any payment for the said amount?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Did you
execute a receipt for the amount paid by him on December 12, 1973?
A:
Yes, sir, but I told Mr. Requiron that I have to give the receipt to
him
on December 14, 1973.cralaw:red
Q: Why should
you give the receipt to Mr. Requiron on December 14, 1973?
A:
Because the public auction sale was to be on that date.cralaw:red
Q: Did Mr.
Requiron on December 12, 1973 pay you the amount on the property that
he
intends to buy on December 14, 1973?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: (ATTY.
GUERRERO ON CROSS EXAMINATION)
You said a while ago
that on December 14, 1973 the date of the public auction there was no
other
bidder, is that correct?
A:
Yes, sir there was none.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Mr. Mahilum,
let us assume that there was no other bidder what would happen to those
receipts issued by you but not yet released to Mr. Leon Requiron?
A:
If your Honor will give me leeway to explain, I told Mr. Requiron that
I will release his receipts on the 14th of December, 1973. I also told
him that if there is anybody who will bid even P.05 more th(e)n what he
paid will be returned to him and the one who pay more will be
accredited
as the buyer. It will be refunded to him.cralaw:red
Q: (ATTY.
GUERRERO)
Will you please inform
the Court if you have received a message from the Provincial Treasurer
in Bacolod City dated December 12, 1973 addressed to you as Municipal
Treasurer
for you to suspend the said sale?
A:
(MR. MAHILUM)
I did (sic) not.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: (ATTY.
GUERRERO)
Can you recall having
received a POLCOM message dated December 12, 1973 sent to you by the
Provincial
Treasurer Mr. Santillan previously marked Exhibit ‘17'?
ATTY. VILLAMOR:
The answer is very clear
your Honor. The witness said he did not receive any message from the
Provincial
Treasurer. No showing that it was ever received.cralaw:red
COURT:
The trend now of the
cross examination is to recall the memory of the witness by presenting
the copy of the POLCOM message.cralaw:red
ATTY. VILLAMOR:
Your Honor, the witness
has already answered that he did not receive.cralaw:red
COURT:
Alright let the witness
answer.cralaw:red
A:
(WITNESS PERUSING RECORDS). I have not received this.[58]
Mr. Mahilum's testimony
was offered to prove the following claims of the petitioner: (1) that
he
tendered payment to cover the amount of tax delinquency on December 12,
1973, (2) that Mr. Mahilum accepted such payment as a bid, with a
proviso
that the receipt would be given on December 14, 1973, (3) that Mr.
Mahilum
did not receive the POLCOM message suspending the auction sale, (4)
that
the public auction pushed through as scheduled, and (4) that there was
no other bidder during the public auction.cralaw:red
On this score, we have
the following observations: First, we do not agree that petitioner's
payment
on December 12, 1973 constituted a valid bid for the scheduled public
auction
sale on December 14, 1973. To constitute a valid bid, it should be made
within the period provided, in this case, from 10:00 am to 12:00 noon
of
December 14, 1973. The reason is simple. Before the scheduled period
for
public auction, the property is not yet for sale. The property owner
still
has the option to pay the taxes and stay the public auction sale. The
municipal
treasurer could not validly accept payment for a property which he
could
not validly sell.cralaw:red
Second, pursuant to
section 36 of Commonwealth Act No. 470, it is the payment of the tax
delinquency
which suspends the conduct of a scheduled public auction. Whether Mr.
Mahilum
received the POLCOM message or not is beside the point. It is
uncontradicted
that defendants-respondents made a partial payment; such payment was
accepted
by the provincial treasurer and made known to Mr. Mahilum. It may not
be
sufficient to cover all the taxes due on the property but it was in
substantial
compliance of the law.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third, petitioner's
assertion that he bought Lot No. 915 at the public auction is negated
by
his admission that he bought the property from the heirs of Catalino on
April 1, 1974. It is obviously illogical, as it is unnecessary, to buy
the same property again.cralaw:red
Fourth, the Certificate
of Repurchase After Sale, which the petitioner presented to buttress
his
case, contradicts, rather than supports his claims. It also clouds the
credibility of Mr. Mahilum who prepared the document.cralaw:red
To begin with, a Certificate
of Repurchase After Sale is given to the delinquent taxpayer or his
assign
if he exercised his option to redeem the property sold either to the
highest
bidder in the public auction, or to the province, if there was no
winning
bidder. It is not synonymous to a Certificate of Sale, which is given
to
the winning bidder at the public auction or to the province if it
decided
to purchase the property when there was no other bidder or no
satisfactory
bid.cralaw:red
Examining closely the
document, the Certificate of Repurchase After Sale suggests that the
province
of Negros Occidental purchased the property in a public auction held on
December 14, 1973, and that Mr. Leon Requiron repurchased the property
in behalf of Catalino Javello on March 21, 1975. The document further
states
that the cost of repurchase was paid on December 12, 1973. The body of
the document, signed by Mr. Mahilum, reads as follows:
I hereby certify that
pursuant to the provisions of section 38 of Commonwealth Act No. 470,
Mr.
Leon Requiron, in behalf of Catalino Jovillo (sic) has today
repurchased
the real property declared under Tax No. Lot No. 915/ 1389 and 1892
which
was sold to the Province of Negros Occidental for the amount of Basic
Tax
P820.54 and S.E.F P705.63 and P5.00 cost of sale or a total of
P1,531.17,
at the public auction held on December 14, 1973 at 10:00 - 12:00 by
paying
to this Office the total amount of taxes and penalties due up to the
date
of repurchase, the cost of the sale and the interest of twelve per
centum
(12%) per annum on the purchase price, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged
as per Official Receipt No. Basic Tax- O.R. No. 0686754 G; S.E. Fund -
O.R. No. 0686755; Cost of Sale, O.R. No. 9834533 H dated December 12,
1973.
The amount of taxes and penalties due on this property, the costs of
sale
and the interest on the purchase price are: Basic Taxes- P743.80;
Penalties-
P76.54, Cost of Sale- P5.00 and SEF- P641.20, Penalties- P64.43, Total
P1,531.17[59]
There is no possible
way to reconcile the contents of the Certificate of Repurchase After
Sale
with the petitioner's theory. Assuming that his payment constitutes a
valid
bid and that the scheduled public auction was actually held, Lot No.
915
should have been awarded to him since there was no other bidder on
December
14, 1973. After all, his payment satisfies the tax due on the property,
the penalties as well as the interests and costs of the auction. But
according
to the Certificate of Repurchase After Sale, it was the provincial
government
of Negros Occidental that purchased Lot No. 915 at the public auction.
Ergo, assuming that the public auction did push through as scheduled,
either
the petitioner did not actually tender payment on December 12, 1973, or
that the municipal treasurer did not accept such payment as a valid bid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As an alternative interpretation,
it could be that petitioner is the plaintiffs-respondents' assignee in
repurchasing the property. After buying the property from the heirs of
Catalino Javello on April 1, 1974, petitioner could have repurchased
the
same from the province on March 21, 1975 as suggested by the
Certificate
of Repurchase After Sale. The evidence at hand, however, cannot also
sustain
this alternative view. The Certificate of Repurchase After Sale suffers
from some unexplained internal inconsistencies, and hence, its validity
is also suspect. For instance, the document stated that petitioner
repurchased
Lot No. 915, in behalf of Catalino Javello, on March 21, 1975. If the
province
did in fact buy the property on December 14, 1973 as indicated, the
petitioner's
repurchase could not have been valid as it was done way beyond the
one-year
period of redemption provided by section 38 of Commonwealth Act No.
470.
More, the document states that the petitioner paid the amount of
repurchase
in behalf of Catalino Javello on December 12, 1973, even before the
province
allegedly bought the property at the public auction. This is illogical.
If petitioner was acting in behalf of Catalino Javello and paid the
delinquent
taxes on the property on December 12, 1973, Lot No. 915 should not have
been offered for public auction in the first place. The provincial
government
has no way of buying the property, and petitioner has nothing to
repurchase.cralaw:red
Taking into consideration
the totality of the evidence presented, the petitioner not only failed
to establish that he purchased Lot No. 915 at the public auction but
likewise
failed to prove that the public auction was conducted at all. We, thus,
agree with the Court of Appeals that in all probability, the public
auction
was suspended, as it should have been, because of the partial payment
tendered
by Mrs. Ferraro. In which case, neither the provincial government nor
the
petitioner bought the property.cralaw:red
Proceeding now to the
respective claims of the plaintiffs-respondents and
defendants-respondents,
we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the Court of
Appeals.cralaw:red
As correctly observed
by the Court of Appeals, the weight of evidence does not support the
plaintiffs-respondents'
claim that their predecessors-in-interest merely leased Lot No. 915 to
Teofilo Asuelo, defendants-respondents' predecessor-in-interest. There
was no written agreement. Only the testimony of Conrado Javello, one of
the plaintiffs-respondents, was offered to prove the existence of the
alleged
verbal lease agreement.cralaw:red
In contrast, defendants-respondents'
entitlement to the property is evidenced by the following public
instruments:
(1) Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Catalino Javello in favor of
Teofilo
Asuelo dated September 26, 1950, (2) Declaration of Legal Heirs and
Deed
of Absolute Sale executed by Abundia Castro, Gertrudes Javello and
heirs
of Mariano Javello and Segunda Javello in favor of Teofilo Asuelo dated
December 19, 1963, and (3) Declaration of Heirship and Confirmation of
Sale executed by Abundia, Juanito, Diosdado, Gertrudes, Hilaria,
Adelina,
Emeterio, and Felisa, all surnamed Javello, Alfredo, Natividad, Miguel
and Ofelia, all surnamed Nicolas, in favor of Teofilo Asuelo dated
August
8, 1966.cralaw:red
Defendants-respondents
were able to explain the alleged inconsistency in the Declaration of
Heirship
and Confirmation of Sale. In this wise, Atty. Canoy who prepared the
document
testified as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:
On Exhibit 5, at the
bottom of page 3, the following appears: "In witness whereof, we
hereunto
have signed this instrument at Sagay, Negros Occidental, this 8th day
of
August 1966." The figure "8th" appears in ink, whereas the word
"August"
is superimposed in ink over the typewritten word "October" and the
figure,
last figure "6" is in ink; whereas in page 5, the following appears:
"Doc.
No. 65; Book No. 19; Page No. 14, Series of 1965." Now, how would you
reconcile
this apparent discrepancy that this document was allegedly executed
before
you on August 8, 1966 whereas on page 5, it appears that this document
appears in your notarial book, series of 1965?
WITNESS: (Canoy)
Now, Mr. Aguiles Jave
who prepared this document prepared it in 1965 and because it was
finally
signed by all the signatories on August 8, 1966, then it was the date
that
was entered in my book. But for clerical error, some of the copies were
not corrected by me. But other copies including my report to the clerk
of court were duly corrected.cralaw:red
COURT:
But why does Exhibit
5 mention series of 1965 if this was executed before you on August 8,
1966?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WITNESS:
The ratification, sir,
is 1966 because it was the date that the signatories have completed
their
signatures.cralaw:red
COURT:
But why did you mention
Series of 1965?
WITNESS:
That is the clerical
error not corrected.[60]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the genuineness
of the signatures, as well as the thumbmarks, of the
plaintiffs-defendants,
was ably proven in the trial court. The Bacolod Police Department
presented
a Dactyloscopic Report[61]
attesting to the genuineness of Emeterio Javello's thumbmark in the
Declaration
of Heirship and Confirmation of Sale. The National Bureau of
Investigation
affirmed this report.[62]
It was also proven that Catalino Javello is not illiterate; he has
previously
signed a Sworn Declaration,[63]
and such signature matched that of his signature in the Deed of
Absolute
Sale.cralaw:red
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the
petition is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV 14524 is AFFIRMED. Cost against the petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
Corona, J., on official
leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
[2]
Now covered by TCT No. T-125258 in the name of petitioner Leon Requiron.
[3]
See Cadastral Court Decision dated March 27, 1929, Records, Vol. I, p.
72.
[4]
Also referred to as Jovillo in some parts of the records.
[5]
Records, Vol. I, p. 1.
[6]
Id. at 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit "8," Records, Vol. III, p. 10.
[8]
Exhibit "13," id. at 15-16.
[9]
Exhibit "14," id. at 17-19.
[10]
Exhibits "16"- "16T," id. at 21-40.
[11]
Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-6.
[12]
Id. at 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Exhibit "6," Records, Vol. III, pp. 7-8.
[14]
Exhibit "9," id. at 11-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Exhibit "5," id. at 2-6.
[16]
Records, Vol. I, p. 95.
[17]
Id. at 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id. at 3-4.
[19]
Id. at 5-6.
[20]
Exhibit "4," Dactyloscopic Report No. 32-74 dated February 8, 1974.
Rodolfo
Castillo, head of the Forensic Technology Branch, Criminalistics
Division
of the Bacolod Police Department explained the contents of the Report
in
his testimony dated July 11, 1974. See Records, Vol. II, pp. 56-72.
[21]
Exhibit "28," Dactyloscopic Report-FP Case No. 74-212 dated October 4,
1974, Records, Vol. I, p. 305.
[22]
Exhibit "1," Records, Vol. III, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
TSN, Tereso Canoy, January 7, 1975, pp. 1-16; id., September 9, 1976,
pp.
1-14.
[24]
Exhibit "18," id. at 365.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
TSN, Cecilia Asuelo Ferraro, September 18, 1980, p. 7. See Exhibit
"16-H,"
Records, Vol. III, p. 29.
[26]
Exhibit "17," Records, Vol. III, p. 41.
[27]
Exhibits "27" - "27-A," Records, Vol. I, pp. 366-367.
[28]
TSN, Eduardo Mahilum, March 6, 1985, p. 28.
[29]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id. at 35.
[31]
Id. at 34.
[32]
Records, Vol. III, p. 49.
[33]
Exhibit "19," Records, Vol. I, p. 368.
[34]
Records, Vol. I, pp. 361-364.
[35]
Id. at 363.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Id. at 387-390.
[37]
Records, Vol. I, p. 393.
[38]
Records, Vol. II, p. 151.
[39]
Id. at 151-152.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
Id. at 153-154.
[41]
Id. at 155.
[42]
Id. at 159.
[43]
CA Rollo, p. 101.
[44]
Id. at 126.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
Records, Vol. II, pp. 225-234.
[46]
Id. at 223-234.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
CA Rollo, p. 111.
[48]
Rollo, pp. 30-40.
[49]
Id., p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
Id., p. 14.
[51]
Valencia v. Jimenez, 11 Phil. 492 (1908).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
Approved on June 16, 1939, Commonwealth Act No. 470 took effect on
January
1, 1940.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
Section 35. Advertisement of Sale of real Property at Public Auction.-
After the expiration of the year for which the tax is due, the
provincial
or city treasurer shall advertise the sale at public auction of the
entire
delinquent real property or so much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy
all the taxes and penalties due and costs of sale. Such advertisement
shall
be made by posting a notice for three consecutive weeks in the main
entrances
of the provincial buildings and of all the municipal buildings in the
province,
and in public and conspicuous place in a barrio wherein the property is
situated, in English, Spanish and the local dialect commonly used, and,
in the discretion of the provincial or city treasurer, by publishing it
once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation
published in the province, if there is any. Copy of the notice shall
forthwith
be sent either by registered mail or by messenger, or through the
barrio
captain, to the delinquent taxpayer, at his residence if known to the
said
treasurer. The notice shall set forth the amount of the taxes and
penalties
due and the costs of sale, the date and place of sale, the name of
taxpayers
against whom the tax was assessed and the approximate area, the lot
number
and the location, stating the street, number, district, barrio,
municipality,
and the province where the property to be sold is situated.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[54]
Section 36. Sale of Real Property. — At any time during or before the
sale
the taxpayers may stay all proceedings by paying the taxes and
penalties
due on the real property and the costs to the provincial or city
treasurer
or his deputy conducting the sale. If he does not do so, the sale shall
proceed, which shall be held either at the main entrance of the
municipal
government building or on the site of the real property to be sold, as
the provincial treasurer or his deputy may determine.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
provincial treasurer or his deputy shall make report of the sale to the
provincial board within five days after the sale and shall make the
same
appear in his records. The purchaser at this sake shall receive from
the
provincial treasurer or his deputy a certificate setting forth the
proceedings
had at the sale, a description of the property sold, the name of the
purchaser,
the price of the sale, and the exact amount of the taxes, and penalties
due, and the cost of sale.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
Section 37. Provincial treasurer may buy real property in behalf of
province
if no other bidder.- In case there is no bidder at the public
auction
of the delinquent real property or if the highest bid for the
amount
is not sufficient to pay the taxes, penalties and costs, the provincial
treasurer may, in his discretion, buy the delinquent real property in
the
name of the province. Should the provincial treasurer buy the real
property
in the name of the province, he shall forthwith issue to the provincial
board a certificate to the effect that the real property has been sold
to the province for the amount of the taxes, penalties and costs, and
shall
make within five days thereafter a return of his proceedings which
shall
be spread upon the records of his office. The owner of the delinquent
real
property shall be furnished with a copy of the sale certificate.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[56]
Section 38. Repurchase of real property after sale.- Within the term of
one year from the date of the sale, the delinquent taxpayer or any
other
person in his behalf shall have the right to repurchase the property
sold
by paying to the provincial treasurer or his deputy the total amount of
taxes and penalties due up to the date of repurchase, the costs of sale
and the interest, at the rate of twelve per centum per annum, on the
purchase
price, and such payment shall invalidate the sale certificate issued to
the purchaser or to the provincial board and shall entitle the person
making
the sale to a certificate from the provincial treasurer or his deputy,
stating that he had repurchased the property, and the provincial
treasurer
or his deputy, upon surrender by the purchaser of the certificate of
sale
previously issued to him, shall forthwith return to the latter the
entire
sum paid by him plus the interest at twelve per centum per annum herein
provided for, and the said property shall thereafter be free from the
lien
of said taxes and penalties.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[57]
Section 40. Issuance of final bill of sale.- In case the delinquent
taxpayer
does not repurchase the property sold as herein provided within the
period
of one year from the date of the sale, the provincial treasurer shall
make
an instrument in form and effect to convey to the purchaser the
property
purchased by him, or to the province as the case may be, free from any
encumbrance whatsoever, and the said instrument shall succinctly set
forth
all proceedings upon which the validity of the sale depends. Any
balance
of the proceeds of the sale left after deducting the amount of taxes
and
penalties due, and the costs, shall be returned to the original owner
or
his representative.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[58]
TSN, Mr. Mahilum, March 6, 1985, pp. 20-37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[59]
Exhibit "19," Records, Vol. I, p. 368.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[60]
TSN, Tereso Canoy, September 9, 1976, Records, Vol. I, p. 656.
[61]
Supra note 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[62]
Supra note 21.
[63]
Supra note 22. |