February 1910 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > February 1910 Decisions >
G.R. No. 5478 February 26, 1910 - SERAFIN BELARMINO v. MIGUEL BAQUIZAL
015 Phil 341:
015 Phil 341:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 5478. February 26, 1910. ]
SERAFIN BELARMINO ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MIGUEL BAQUIZAL ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
Leoncio and Carlos A. imperial, for Appellants.
Albert E. Somersille, for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. REALTY; TAX SALE CERTIFICATES NOT ASSIGNABLE; DEEDS. — A certificate issued to a purchaser of land at a tax sale is not assignable, and a deed issued to any person other then the purchaser at such sale is void in the hands of such person or in the hands of his transferee.
D E C I S I O N
MORELAND, J. :
This case was decided on the following agreed statement of facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
First. That the seven parcels of land described in the complaint of the plaintiff herein are situated as stated in said complaint and are lands in question.
Second. That the said seven parcels of land described in the complaint were the property of Estanislao Amier, now deceased.
Third. That the said seven parcels of land in the year 1902 were declared by Estanislao Amier as his property.
Fourth. That on the 7th day of May, 1903, said seven parcels of land were sold at public sale on account of the territorial tax on the same not having been paid by their owner, Estanislao Amier, or by any other person.
Fifth. That on the 7th day of May, 1903, Gaudencio Apuya bought said seven parcels of land at the said public sale and received a certificate of sale therefor.
Sixth. That said Gaudencio Apuya on the 23rd day of June, 1903, sold said certificate of sale and all his interest in the same to Rosalia Diasanta, and the latter, on the 5th day of September, 1907, sold all her rights in the said lands to the plaintiff herein, Serafin Belarmino.
Seventh. That on the 23rd day of August, 1906, Rosalia Diasanta, assignee of Gaudencio Apuya, received from the provincial treasurer of Albay, in her name, a deed of the said seven parcels of land, the same not having been redeemed by said Escolastico Amier or by any other person.
Eighth. That said seven parcels of land were later twice sold at public sale for failure to pay the territorial tax and were each time redeemed by said Rosalia Diasanta.
Ninth. That Gaudencio Apuya died on the 21st day of February, 1907, leaving as his only heirs at law and next of kin his widow, Atanacia Cafe, and a brother of the deceased, Juan Apuya, who are the only persons who have the right to be declared heirs of the said deceased.
Tenth. That Estanislao Amier died in the year 1892, leaving his only heirs at law and next of kin his nieces Miguela, Juliana, Celedonia, and Quintin, surnamed Baquizal, Severina Yanzon, the deceased Escolastico Amier and his heirs and grandchildren, Bibiana Arao and Roque Yanzon, all of whom would be heirs in case of the declaration of heirship of the said Estanislao Amier.
Eleventh. That Gaudencio Apuya and Estanislao Amier died intestate, leaving their property undivided and without a partition of the same amount their heirs.
Twelfth. That Bibiana Arao is actually administratrix of the estate of Estanislao Amier, deceased, being duly named as such by the court.
Thirteenth. That Escolastico Amier was authorized by the defendants to declare the said seven parcels of land for taxation but was not authorized to declare them as his exclusive property.
Upon these facts the court below found in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them owners of the seven parcels of land and ordering that the defendants deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiffs. From this judgment this appeal was taken.
The appellants in this court made several assignments of error. The only one we need to consider is that wherein they claim that the judge erred in finding that the assignment of the certificate of sale by Apuya to Diasanta was valid and that the deed subsequently made by the treasurer of the Province of Albay to the said Diasanta, pursuant to said certificate, transferred the title to said lands to the said Diasanta.
This precise question has been passed upon by this court in the case of Black v. Nygren (8 Phil. Rep., 205). In that case the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Johnson, says (p. 206):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"From the record the following facts appear:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(1) That on the 28th day of January, 1905, the acting provincial treasurer of the Province of Pampanga issued to one S. S. McVey, a certificate of tax sale for certain land sold at a tax sale in said Province of Pampanga.
"(2) On the 10th day of August, 1906, the said S. S. McVey, assigned the said certificate of tax sale to the plaintiff herein.
"(3) On the 13th day of September, 1906, the plaintiff herein filed a petition in this court praying that a writ of mandamus be issued against the defendant herein, as treasurer of the Province of Pampanga, to compel him to issue to the plaintiff a tax deed to the lands described in said certificate of tax sale.
"(4) On the 30th day of October, 1906, the Attorney-General of Philippine Islands, representing the said treasurer, filed a demurrer to said petition for mandamus, upon the ground that the complaint did not state acts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, specifically stating the reasons therefor. Said demurrer was heard by this court on the 12th day of November, 1906.
"The question presented is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to a writ of mandamus under the provisions of law in force in the Philippine Islands. It is the general rule that a writ of mandamus will not lie against a corporation, board, or officer to compel him or them to perform any specific duty unless such duty is clearly defined by the law or by virtue of an official duty or relation.
"Section 80 of the Municipal Code (Act No. 82) provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘In case the taxpayer shall not redeem the land sold as above provided within one year from the date of sale, the provincial treasurer, or his deputy, in the name of such treasurer, shall, as grantor, execute a deed in form and effect sufficient under the laws of the Islands to convey to the purchaser so much of the land against which taxes have been assessed as have been sold, free from all the aliens of any kind whatsoever, and the deeds shall succinctly recite all the proceedings upon which the validity of the sale depends.’
"It will be noted from the above provision of the said Municipal Code that the treasurer or his deputy shall execute the deed, under the provisions of said Municipal Code, to the purchaser. The plaintiff herein is the assignee of the purchaser. The law gave to the purchaser at the tax sale alone the right to have the deed executed to him. The law made no provision to have the said tax deed issued to the assignee of the purchaser. This provision of the said Municipal Code seems to have been taken from section 289 of the statutes of the State of Vermont, and the courts of the State have held, together with nearly all the States of the States of the Union, that every statute which provides a method by which a person may be divested of his property under a special authority, must be construed strictly.
"In the case of Thatcher v. powell (6 Wheaton, 119, 123) the Supreme Court of the United States said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘That no individual or public officer can sell and convey a goof title to the land of another, unless authorized so to do by express law, is one of those self-evident prepositions to which the mind assents without hesitation; and that the person invested with such a power pursue with precision the course prescribed by law, or his act is invalid, is a principle which has been repeatedly recognized in this court.’
"And again, in the case of Alexander v. Savage (90 Ala., 383), the Supreme Court of Alabama held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘A tax deed made to one substituted for the purchaser, or to any grantee other than the one sanctioned by the statute is void. The statutory authority to convey musty be strictly pursued and the deed made only to those to whom he authorized by law to execute it. (Keen v. Houghton, 19 Maine, 368.) ’
"The law in the present case required to the defendant to execute the deed to the purchaser under the tax sale. The demurrer is therefore hereby sustained and the plaintiff is hereby given ten days from the notice of this decision within which to amend his complaint, or otherwise the case will be dismissed with costs to the plaintiff. So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library
By virtue of the authority of the above case, holding that the certificate of sale is not assignable and that a deed to any person other than the purchaser at the sale is void, the judgment of the court below is hereby reversed and the plaintiff’s complaint dismissed, without special finding as to costs.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.
First. That the seven parcels of land described in the complaint of the plaintiff herein are situated as stated in said complaint and are lands in question.
Second. That the said seven parcels of land described in the complaint were the property of Estanislao Amier, now deceased.
Third. That the said seven parcels of land in the year 1902 were declared by Estanislao Amier as his property.
Fourth. That on the 7th day of May, 1903, said seven parcels of land were sold at public sale on account of the territorial tax on the same not having been paid by their owner, Estanislao Amier, or by any other person.
Fifth. That on the 7th day of May, 1903, Gaudencio Apuya bought said seven parcels of land at the said public sale and received a certificate of sale therefor.
Sixth. That said Gaudencio Apuya on the 23rd day of June, 1903, sold said certificate of sale and all his interest in the same to Rosalia Diasanta, and the latter, on the 5th day of September, 1907, sold all her rights in the said lands to the plaintiff herein, Serafin Belarmino.
Seventh. That on the 23rd day of August, 1906, Rosalia Diasanta, assignee of Gaudencio Apuya, received from the provincial treasurer of Albay, in her name, a deed of the said seven parcels of land, the same not having been redeemed by said Escolastico Amier or by any other person.
Eighth. That said seven parcels of land were later twice sold at public sale for failure to pay the territorial tax and were each time redeemed by said Rosalia Diasanta.
Ninth. That Gaudencio Apuya died on the 21st day of February, 1907, leaving as his only heirs at law and next of kin his widow, Atanacia Cafe, and a brother of the deceased, Juan Apuya, who are the only persons who have the right to be declared heirs of the said deceased.
Tenth. That Estanislao Amier died in the year 1892, leaving his only heirs at law and next of kin his nieces Miguela, Juliana, Celedonia, and Quintin, surnamed Baquizal, Severina Yanzon, the deceased Escolastico Amier and his heirs and grandchildren, Bibiana Arao and Roque Yanzon, all of whom would be heirs in case of the declaration of heirship of the said Estanislao Amier.
Eleventh. That Gaudencio Apuya and Estanislao Amier died intestate, leaving their property undivided and without a partition of the same amount their heirs.
Twelfth. That Bibiana Arao is actually administratrix of the estate of Estanislao Amier, deceased, being duly named as such by the court.
Thirteenth. That Escolastico Amier was authorized by the defendants to declare the said seven parcels of land for taxation but was not authorized to declare them as his exclusive property.
Upon these facts the court below found in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them owners of the seven parcels of land and ordering that the defendants deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiffs. From this judgment this appeal was taken.
The appellants in this court made several assignments of error. The only one we need to consider is that wherein they claim that the judge erred in finding that the assignment of the certificate of sale by Apuya to Diasanta was valid and that the deed subsequently made by the treasurer of the Province of Albay to the said Diasanta, pursuant to said certificate, transferred the title to said lands to the said Diasanta.
This precise question has been passed upon by this court in the case of Black v. Nygren (8 Phil. Rep., 205). In that case the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Johnson, says (p. 206):jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"From the record the following facts appear:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(1) That on the 28th day of January, 1905, the acting provincial treasurer of the Province of Pampanga issued to one S. S. McVey, a certificate of tax sale for certain land sold at a tax sale in said Province of Pampanga.
"(2) On the 10th day of August, 1906, the said S. S. McVey, assigned the said certificate of tax sale to the plaintiff herein.
"(3) On the 13th day of September, 1906, the plaintiff herein filed a petition in this court praying that a writ of mandamus be issued against the defendant herein, as treasurer of the Province of Pampanga, to compel him to issue to the plaintiff a tax deed to the lands described in said certificate of tax sale.
"(4) On the 30th day of October, 1906, the Attorney-General of Philippine Islands, representing the said treasurer, filed a demurrer to said petition for mandamus, upon the ground that the complaint did not state acts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, specifically stating the reasons therefor. Said demurrer was heard by this court on the 12th day of November, 1906.
"The question presented is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to a writ of mandamus under the provisions of law in force in the Philippine Islands. It is the general rule that a writ of mandamus will not lie against a corporation, board, or officer to compel him or them to perform any specific duty unless such duty is clearly defined by the law or by virtue of an official duty or relation.
"Section 80 of the Municipal Code (Act No. 82) provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘In case the taxpayer shall not redeem the land sold as above provided within one year from the date of sale, the provincial treasurer, or his deputy, in the name of such treasurer, shall, as grantor, execute a deed in form and effect sufficient under the laws of the Islands to convey to the purchaser so much of the land against which taxes have been assessed as have been sold, free from all the aliens of any kind whatsoever, and the deeds shall succinctly recite all the proceedings upon which the validity of the sale depends.’
"It will be noted from the above provision of the said Municipal Code that the treasurer or his deputy shall execute the deed, under the provisions of said Municipal Code, to the purchaser. The plaintiff herein is the assignee of the purchaser. The law gave to the purchaser at the tax sale alone the right to have the deed executed to him. The law made no provision to have the said tax deed issued to the assignee of the purchaser. This provision of the said Municipal Code seems to have been taken from section 289 of the statutes of the State of Vermont, and the courts of the State have held, together with nearly all the States of the States of the Union, that every statute which provides a method by which a person may be divested of his property under a special authority, must be construed strictly.
"In the case of Thatcher v. powell (6 Wheaton, 119, 123) the Supreme Court of the United States said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘That no individual or public officer can sell and convey a goof title to the land of another, unless authorized so to do by express law, is one of those self-evident prepositions to which the mind assents without hesitation; and that the person invested with such a power pursue with precision the course prescribed by law, or his act is invalid, is a principle which has been repeatedly recognized in this court.’
"And again, in the case of Alexander v. Savage (90 Ala., 383), the Supreme Court of Alabama held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"‘A tax deed made to one substituted for the purchaser, or to any grantee other than the one sanctioned by the statute is void. The statutory authority to convey musty be strictly pursued and the deed made only to those to whom he authorized by law to execute it. (Keen v. Houghton, 19 Maine, 368.) ’
"The law in the present case required to the defendant to execute the deed to the purchaser under the tax sale. The demurrer is therefore hereby sustained and the plaintiff is hereby given ten days from the notice of this decision within which to amend his complaint, or otherwise the case will be dismissed with costs to the plaintiff. So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library
By virtue of the authority of the above case, holding that the certificate of sale is not assignable and that a deed to any person other than the purchaser at the sale is void, the judgment of the court below is hereby reversed and the plaintiff’s complaint dismissed, without special finding as to costs.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.
