Monera v. Sandico

[CA-G.R. SP No. 13338. February 8, 1989.] DIOSO MONERA , petitioner , vs . MAYORICO SANDICO , private, respondent; ANSELMO C. REGIS, in his capacity as City Assessor, Quezon city, et al., public, respondents . Romeo S. Esmero for petitioner. Necito S. Hilario and Benjamin Quitoriano for respondent. SYLLABUS 1. TAXATION; REAL PROPERTY TAX (P.D. 464); CAUSE OF ACTION; PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE AND INTEREST OF A REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS SUBJECT OF A TAX SALE IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT IN AN ACTION ASSAILING THE VALIDITY OF SAID TAX SALE, OTHERWISE NO CAUSE OF ACTION EXISTS. There is no dispute that herein petitioner has not paid unto this court the amount required under the provision of P.D. 46, Sec. 83. As a matter of fact, counsel for petitioner admitted such failure in open Court, and surprisingly, has not offered to pay the amount nor asked for leave of this Court to do so, by way of curing the deficiency of her petition. Be that as it may, the payment of such amount is mandatory and is prerequisite or a condition precedent to the prosecution of a case assailing the validity of a tax sale under the Real Property Tax Code. Non-compliance therewith bars and is fatal to the action. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; IN ACTION ASSAILING THE VALIDITY OF A TAX SALE, THE PETITIONER MUST ALLEGE IN HIS PETITION THAT HE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIRED PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE AND INTEREST OF THE REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS SUBJECT OF A TAX SALE. Such deposit, being a condition precedent to the accrual of petitioner's right of action, should have been averred as an essential allegation of the instant petition (Section 3, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of Court; Government vs. Enchausti, 24 Phil. 315). The petitioner's failure to allege the same in her petition rendered her complaint defective and subject to dismissal for lack of cause of action (Royales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 127 SCRA 470, 473; Heirs of Angelina Ledesma vs. Hon. Rodolfo Ortiz, et al., CA-G.R. No. SP No. 10584, April 29, 1987). 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ANY IRREGULARITY IN THE AUCTION SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCUSE PETITIONER FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE PAYMENT OF THE REQUIRED AMOUNT. The irregularly or informalities in the auction sale proceedings which petitioner imputes to public respondents allegedly resulting in the impairment of her substantial rights as a taxpayer, does not excuse her from paying the required amount before this Court can entertain the instant action. ORIGINAL ACTION in the Court of Appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. D E C I S I O N BUENA , J p : This is a petition for annulment of judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch XC, dated June 8, 1983 in L.R.C. Case No. Q-24358 (83) and the consequent nullification of auction sale and cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 302024 issued in favor of private respondent as the highest bidder and buyer of the land in question at the public auction sale conducted by the public respondents (except the Register of Deeds of Quezon city) on November 26, 1981. The facts of the case as gathered from the pleadings are as follows: Petitioner was the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Quezon City, more particularly described in her former Transfer Certificate of Title No. 129962 as follows: "A parcel of land shown on plan of subd., as Lot No. 3, Block No. 50, Psd.-1650, being a portion of Lot A-2-B-4, Pas 1577, G.L.R.O. Record No. 3563), situated in the Barrio of San Francisco del Monte, Province of Rizal. Bounded on the NE., by Lot No. 4; on the SE., by Lot No. 15, on the SW., by Lot No. 2; on the NW., by Road, containing an area of FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE (533) SQUARE METERS, more or less." For failure of petitioner to pay the real estate taxes on said property from 1970 up to 1980, the Quezon City government sold the property in question at a public auction sale conducted on November 26, 1981 to private respondent Mayorico Sandico, as the highest bidder in the amount of SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND (P79,000.00) PESOS. On June 8, 1983, after petitioner failed to redeem said property within the reglementary period, the Honorable Regional Trial Court of Quezon City rendered an Order in LRC Case No. 2435 (83), the dispositive portion which reads: "WHEREFORE, the petition is ordered granted, ownership is ordered consolidated in the petitioner and the Register of Deeds is ordered to issue a new title in the name of Mayorico Sandico upon payment of the required fees therefor, (sic) hereby cancelling the former TCT No. 129962 and declaring it as null and void." Hence, this action was brought by petitioner on November 19, 1987. The main ground of this petition is lack of actual notice to petitioner of the proceedings before the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City in LRC Case No. Q-2435 (83) and in all the proceedings dealing with the auction sale of the property in question and the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 129962 as articulated in the following paragraphs of the instant petition, thus: "6. That the humble indulgence of this Honorable Court is implored to annul and set aside this order dated June 8, 1983 because the Court records of RTC, Branch 90, Quezon city would sustain that never over for once has the petitioner been 'actually' notified of the trial proceedings together with all proceedings dealing with the auction sale and cancellation of her Transfer Certificate of Title No. 129962: 7. That it was only sometime in the last week of August, 1983, that petitioner has discovered that her Transfer Certificate of Title No. 129962 has already been cancelled when she tried to pay her back realty taxes thru Mrs. Adela Vda. de Barro; 8. That the trial Court records of this case has unveiled that notices in this case together with the auction sale has been sent to petitioner's former residence at 2118 Claro M. Recto, Sampaloc, Manila but petitioner has already transferred her residence way back, 1972; 9. That notices of the Honorable Trial Court in this case could have been sent at 30 Judge Juan Luna St., San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, which is the address of the petitioner's lot sold at the public auction sale but never even for once has this been done by said trial Court nor by the City Treasurer's Office nor by the private respondent, Mayorico Sandico; 10. That petitioner could have been notified of the public auction sale and all proceedings in this case at the aforesaid 30 Judge Juan Luna St., San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City thru her husband Abundio Esmero and her sons and daughters namely, Romy, Mario, Norie, Alexander, Emmanuel, Jesus, Michael Catherine and Gemma who were all residing the in this lot;" After the deficiencies in the original petition as declared in Our resolution dated November 25, 1987 were complied with, the respondents were required to comment on the petition in Our resolution dated April 25, 1988. Since the Office of the Solicitor General asked to be excused from filing the comment for public respondents, the private and public respondents filed their separate comments on the petition all directed at upholding the regularity and validity of the auction sale in question, citing public respondents' compliance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 464 as amended, otherwise known as Real Property Tax Code, and alleging further that the record of the subject property in the Office of the City Assessor showed that the address of Diosa Monera was at 2118 C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila. On the other hand, private respondent took pains in attaching to his comment Annexes "1" to "23" all of which underscored the fact that the only address of Diosa Monera available to the public respondents on the basis of official records was 2118 C.M. Recto Avenue, manila and no other, and that their act of sending the notices to that address for all the stages of the proceedings of the auction sale was in faithful compliance with the last paragraph of Section 72 of P.D. 464 which reads: Copy of this notice shall forthwith be sent either by registered mail or by messenger, or through the barrio captain, to the delinquent taxpayer, at his address as shown in the tax rolls or property tax record cards of the municipality or city where the property is located, or at his residence , if known to said treasurer or barrio captain; Provided, however, That a return of the proof of service under oath shall be filed by the person making with the provincial or city treasurer." (Emphasis supplied). Prescinding from all the foregoing, it is Our considered opinion that the authority of this Court to entertain the instant petition is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 83 of P.D. 464 which reads: "SEC. 83. Suits assailing validity of tax sale . No court shall entertain any suit assailing the validity of a tax sale of real estate under this Chapter until the taxpayer shall have paid into court the amount for which the real property was sold, together with interests of twenty per centum per annum upon that sum from the date of sale to the time of instituting suit . The money so paid into court shall belong to the purchaser at the tax sale if the deed is declared invalid, but shall be returned to the depositor if the action fails. Neither shall any court declared a sale invalid by reason of irregularities or formalities in the proceedings committed by the officer charged with the duty of making sale, or by reason of failure by him to perform his duties within the time herein specified for their performance, unless it shall have been proven that such irregularities, informalities or failure have impaired the substantial rights of the taxpayer." There is no dispute that herein petitioner has not paid unto this Court the amount required under the aforecited provision of law. As a matter of fact, counsel for petitioner admitted such failure in open Court, and surprisingly, has not offered to pay the amount nor asked for leave of this Court to do so, by way of curing the deficiency of her petition. Be that as it may, the payment of such amount is mandatory and is a prerequisites or a condition precedent to the prosecution of a case assailing the validity of a tax sale under the Real Property Tax Code. Noncompliance bars and is fatal to the action. As a matter of fact, such deposit being a condition precedent to the accrual of petitioner's right of action, should have been averred as an essential allegation of the instant petition (Section 3, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of Court; Government vs. Enchausti, 24 Phil. 315). The petitioner's failure to allege the same in her petition her complaint defective and subject to dismissal for lack of cause of action (Royales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 127 SCRA 470, 473; Heirs of Angelina Ledesma vs. Hon. Rodolfo Ortiz, et al., CA-G.R. SP No. 10584, April 29, 1987). The irregularity or informalities in the auction sale proceedings which petitioner imputes to public respondents allegedly resulting in the impairment of her substantial rights as a taxpayer, does not excuse her from paying the required amount before this Court can entertain the instant action. WHEREFORE, the instant petition for annulment of judgment is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Limcaoco and Francisco, JJ., concur. Petition is dismissed .