ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 145493. January 22, 2001]

LORENZO MARTE, et al. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 22 2001.

G.R. No. 145493 (Lorenzo Marte, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

Petitioners Lorenzo I. Marte and Rodolfo I. Marte through a petition for review on certiorari seek to set aside the June 30, 2000 Decision and October 17, 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 45852.

As antecedents, petitioner Lorenzo I. Marte together with his brother Mabini I. Marte, is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 155375 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City.

Pursuant to Section 73 of PD No. 464 (Real Property Tax Code), the property was sold at a public auction for delinquent real estate taxes on said property. Respondent Catalino D. Espino was declared the highest bidder in a public auction sale held on August 22, 1984. Espino was issued a Certificate of Sale Delinquent Property which was registered on August 28, 1984. For failure of the petitioner or his representative to redeem the property within one year from the date of registration of the Certificate of Sale, the City Treasurer issued in favor of respondent the Final Bill of Sale. As the duplicate of TCT No. 155375 was in the possession of the petitioner, respondent filed a case before Branch 102 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City praying for the following: (1) the confirmation of the final bill of sale; (2) that the registered owners be ordered to produce and present the duplicate copy of the TCT No. 155375 to the Court and in case of failure or refusal to do the same, to declare the owner's duplicate TCT as null and void; and (3) that the Register of Deeds of Quezon City be ordered to cancel TCT No. 155375 and in lieu thereof issue a new TCT in the name of the respondent. Petitioners filed an opposition thereto on the ground that the auction sale proceeding was tainted with gross irregularities and that the bid price for the subject property was too low.

After hearing, the RTC rendered a decision that the auction of the property was done in accordance with law, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

(1) Granting the petition for Confirmation of the Final Bill of Sale dated September 11, 1985, and confirming the public auction sale of the property in question for delinquent taxes, in favor of Catalino de Leon Espino;

(2) Denying the opposition filed by Rodolfo I. Marte and Lorenzo I. Marte;

(3) Ordering Rodolfo I. Marte and Lorenzo I. Marte to surrender the owner's Duplicate Transfer Certificate of Title No. 155375 within 30 days from receipt of this decision. In case of failure to surrender said title within the period provided for, said title is cancelled and declared null and void; and

(4) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel the TCT No. 155375, and in lieu thereof, to issue a new transfer certificate of title in the name of herein petitioner.

SO ORDERED. ¹ Rollo, p. 36.

Not satisfied with the decision of the trial court, petitioner elevated this case to the Court of Appeals. The CA, however, affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. ² Id., at 44.Hence, the petition before this Court.

We find no merit in the petition.

Petitioner raises before this Court the issues of the alleged irregularity in the conduct of the auction sale and the inadequacy of the bid price. The issue as to whether the procedure mandated by law in the conduct of an auction sale is one which is factual in nature. As a general rule, findings of fact of the lower court is accorded great respect and this Court shall not disturb the same unless they come within the accepted exceptions. We find no cogent reason to apply the exceptions in this case.

As to the alleged inadequacy of the bud price, the CA correctly pointed out that this does not affect the validity of the auction sale, as the inadequacy of price is not material when the law gives the owner the right to redeem as when a sale is made at a public auction, upon the theory that the lesser price, the easier it is for the owner to effect the redemption. ³ Vda de Gordon vs. CA, 109 SCRA 399 (1981).

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE