Fabian v. Capistrano

[CA No. 11005-R. March 30, 1954.] AGUSTIN C. FABIAN and ANGELA F. FABIAN , petitioners and appellants , vs . NIEVES CAPISTRANO ET AL. , oppositors and appellees . D . H . Soriano for petitioners and appellants. Carmelino G . Alvendia and Amando Calixto for oppositors and appellees. SYLLABUS 1. SALE; TAX SALE; PRESCRIBED STEPS MUST BE FOLLOWED PUNCTILIOUSLY. It has been held, with great propriety, that sales of the property for tax delinquency being in derogation of property rights and due process, the prescribed steps must be followed punctiliously and that exact and complete adherence to the statutes governing tax sales is imperatively necessary (Cooley, The Law of Taxation, 4th ed. Vol. 3, pp. 2725-2726). 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SLIGHT DEVIATION FROM RULE FATAL. A tax sale will be rendered ineffective and void if the notice of sale by publication erroneously describes the lot to be sold and the sale is made by an officer who is not designated by law for that purpose. "A deviation, however small, must be fatal because a rule of law cannot be made to fluctuate according to the degree or extent of its violations." (The law of Taxation, supra , p. 2803). 3. ID.; ID.; REGISTRATION; TAX SALE BINDING ONLY FROM DATE OF REGISTRATION; SECTIONS 50 AND 77, ACT 496. The law is to the effect that the tax sale of registered land should be registered. Section 77 of Act 496 expressly provides, among other things, that whenever a registered land is sold for taxes or for any assessment, any officer's return, or any deed, demand, certificate, or affidavit or any other instrument made in the course of proceedings to enforce such liens shall be filed with the Register of Deeds for the province where the land lies and registered in the registration book, and a memorandum made upon the proper certificate, in each case, as an adverse claim or encumbrance, and section 50 of the same Act 496 also expressly provides that the act of registration shall be the operative act to convey and affect the land. Consequently, the tax sale becomes binding on the property sold only from the date of its registration and the one-year period of redemption begins to run from said date. (Metropolitan Water District vs . Reyes, 74 Phil., 142-143.) D E C I S I O N GUTIERREZ DAVID , J p : This is an appeal filed by Agustin C. Fabian and Angela F. Fabian from an order of the Court of First Instance denying their petition. LLjur A parcel of land containing 121.80 square meters situated at 209 Esguerra Street, Tondo, Manila, and assessed at P690.00 is registered at lot No. 4-R block 3020 in the name of Candido Capistrano, both under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 62757 of the Register of Deeds of Manila (Exhibit "3") and under Assessment No. 1564 of the Office of the City Assessor. The taxes on said property for the years 1948 and 1949 in the sum of P20.70 became delinquent. In the September 28, October 5 and 12, 1949 issues of the "Philippines Herald", a notice of sale for October 29, 1949 carrying the following items was published, to wit: 1. Declared owner Candido Capistrano. 2. Location of property 209 Esguerra, Tondo, Manila. 3. Lot number 4-K. 4. Block number 3020. 5. Kind of property Land. 6. Area 121.80 square meters. 7. Assessed value P690. 8. Assessment Number 1564. (Exhibit "1") On October 29, 1949, as scheduled in the said Notice of Sale, the City Treasurer of Manila conducted the auction sale and awarded to the highest bidder, Angela F. Fabian, petitioner-appellant herein, lot No . 4-R , block 3020, Assessment No. 1564 of Manila, located at 209 Esguerra, Tondo, Manila, with an area of 121.80 square meters more or less, for the sum of P22.49 representing delinquent taxes, penalties and costs. Mrs. Fabian paid the said purchase price under Official Receipt No. 303649-V dated October 29, 1949. (Exhibit "A"). On September 9, 1950, after 8 months had elapsed since the date of the sale (October 29, 1949), the City Treasurer of Manila issued the corresponding certificate of sale (Exhibit "B") covering the lot in question in favor of Mrs. Angela F. Fabian. LLphil On August 27, 1950 a Notice of Sold Properties (Exhibit "C") advising Candido Capistrano of the sale at public auction on October 29, 1949 of his lot No. 4-R, block 3020, Assessment No. 1564 of Manila, located at 209 Esguerra, Tondo, to Mrs. Angela F. Fabian, was allegedly mailed to him at 203 Esguerra, Tondo, Manila, according to a note reading "Mailed on Sun 8/27/50 a.m." on said Exhibit "C". On October 18, 1951 the City Treasurer of Manila executed a final Deed of Sale (Exhibit "F") covering the said lot No. 4-R, block 3020, Assessment No. 1564 of Manila, located at 209 Esguerra, Tondo, Manila in favor of Mrs. Angela F. Fabian the registered owner thereof, Candido Capistrano, having failed to redeem the same within the statutory period of one year "which expired on October 29, 1950". (Exhibit "D"). On December 10, 1951, the certificate of sale (Exhibit "E") was annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. (Illegible portion) by the City Treasurer for non-payment of real estate taxes. On February 6, 1952, petitioners-appellants filed their petition praying for the registration of the final deed of sale (Exhibit "F"), for the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 62757 of Manila, covering the land in question in the name of Candido Capistrano, and for the issuance, in lieu thereof, of a new transfer certificate of title in the name of Angela F. Fabian. On April 30, 1952, the heirs of the late Candido Capistrano the registered owner of the lot in question and Emilia Estrella, who both died on March 14, 1934 and February 10, 1935, respectively, filed and opposition to said petition alleging: that the tax sale of the property involved in the tax sale as appearing in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 62757 is described as lot No. 4-R, block No. 3020, while the land sold at public auction by the City Treasurer on October 29, 1949, as was published in the "Philippines Herald" on September 28, October 5, and 12, 1949 was lot No. 4-K, block 3020, it being a well-settled rule that defective description of property would make the tax sale null and void; that the tax sale conducted by the City Treasurer of Manila on October 29, 1949, for the enforcement of the collection of real estate taxes, penalties and costs, is contrary to the provisions of section 2498 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, and the same is therefore null and void; that the petitioner failed to register the tax certificate in the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila, in order that the same may be annotated in the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 62757, issued by the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila, Philippines, as an adverse claim; that had the petitioners registered the same on time or immediately after the tax sale, the oppositors could have had a chance to discover the proceedings taken on the tax sale and protect their rights; that such failure of the petitioners' amount to a constructive fraud, which sidetrack oppositors' right to redemption; that the petitioners' failure to register in the Register of Deeds the tax sale is an open violation of section 77 of Act 496; that the petitioners have registered the said tax sale on December 10, 1951, long after the legal period of redemption has expired. After hearing both parties, the court below on November 18, 1952 issued the order now appealed from, with the following dispositive part: "The petition, the opposition, their respective evidence, as well as the reply to the opposition have been considered. It appears that what was published in the Philippines Herald announcing the sale of public auction for nonpayment of taxes on October 29, 1949, among other properties, was lot 4-K and not 4-R, described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 62757. It also appears that the certificate of sale of lot No. 4-R issued by the City Treasurer of Manila, on September 9, 1951, was registered in the office of the Registered of Deeds only December 10, 1951. Under the law the delinquent taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the registration of the certificate of sale for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to exercise his right of redemption. In the present case no evidence that Candido Capistrano or his heirs had been notified either by the Register of Deeds of Manila or by the herein petitioners of such registration of the certificate of sale on December 10, 1951. This court considers such error committed in the letter of the lot and in non-notification substantial defects, sufficient grounds for the denial of the petition. The herein oppositor, however, should not be relieved or exempted from paying the corresponding delinquent taxes on their lot No. 4-R described in said title and from delivering the duplicate of Certificate of Title No. 62757 to the Register of Deeds of Manila for the annotation thereon of the said certificate of sale. In view of the foregoing considerations, this court hereby denies the petition and believing it unnecessary to determine on the merits of the other evidence of the parties, order the herein oppositors to pay before December 10, 1952, the corresponding delinquent taxes and surcharges of penalties to the Treasurer of the City of Manila and to deliver to the Register of Deeds of Manila the owner's duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 62757 for the annotation thereon of the above-mentioned certificate of sale, as appearing on the original of said title." (Appellants' brief, pp. 6-7.) In this appeal the appealed order is assailed on the grounds that the lower court erred: (1) in holding that the Notice of Sale of lot No. 4R, block 3020, Assessment No. 1564 of Manila, located at 209 Esguerra, Tondo, Manila, published in the Philippines Herald on September 28, October 5 and 12, 1949 was substantially defective and a cause for denying petitioners-appellants' petition merely because the said lot, subject of this litigation, was designated in the said Notice of Sale as "4K", notwithstanding the fact that all other circumstances of the said lot were correctly indicated in the Notice of Sale; (2) in granting the oppositors-appellees the right to pay the delinquent taxes and surcharges due on the lot in litigation to the City Treasurer of Manila before December 10, 1952, because in so granting, the lower court, in effect, computed the one-year period of redemption belonging to the registered owner of the land in question from December 10, 1951 (date of registration of the corresponding Certificate of Sale) instead of from October 29, 1949 (date of sale) as expressly provided for by section 70 of Act 409, known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila; (3) in holding that under the law the delinquent registered owner of the lot in litigation was entitled to be notified of the registration of the Certificate of Sale for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to exercise his ( Illegible portion ) of Manila, located at 209 Esguerra, Tondo, Manila, to Angela F. Fabian as charging the said Candido Capistrano and his representative with actual knowledge of that fact of sale of his said lot, which actual knowledge is equivalent to registration; and (5) in denying the petition of petitioners-appellants praying for the registration of the deeds of sale (Exhibit "F"), for the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 627557 of Manila, covering the lot in litigation, and for the issuance, in lieu thereof, of a new Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of petitioner-appellant Angela F. Fabian. After going over the records, we find that the court below committed none of the errors assigned. It has been held, with great propriety, that sales of property for tax delinquency being in derogation of property rights and due process, the prescribed steps must be followed punctiliously and that exact and complete adherence to the statutes governing tax sales is imperatively necessary. The main reasons for these rulings are: "Tax sales are made exclusively under a statutory power. The power which the state confers to assess and levy taxes does not of itself include a power to sell lands in enforcing collection, but the power to sell must be expressly given. The officer who makes the sale sells something he does not own, and which he can have no authority to sell except as he is made the agent of the law for the purpose. But he is made such agent only by certain steps which are to precede his action, and which, under the law, are conditions to his authority. If these fail the power is never created. If one of them fails it is as fatal as if all failed. Defects in the conditions to a statutory authority cannot be aided by the courts; if they have not been observed the courts cannot dispense with them, and this bring into existence a power which the statute only permits when the conditions have been fully complied with. Neither, as a general rule, can the courts aid the defective execution of a statutory power; they may do this when the power has been created by the owner himself, and when such action would presumptively be in furtherance of his purpose in creating it; but a statutory power must be executed according to the statutory directions, and presumptively any other execution is opposed to the legislative will, instead of in furtherance of it." (Cooley, The Law of Taxation, 4th ed. Vol. 3, pp. 2725-2726.). There are special reasons applicable to tax sales which the Supreme Court of Maine, U.S.A., in Brown vs . Veazie, 25 Me. 359, 362, summarizes as follows: Sales of real estate for the nonpayment of taxes must be regarded in a great measure as an ex parte proceeding. The owner is to be deprived of his land thereby; and a series of acts preliminary to the sale are to be performed to authorize it on the part of the assessors and collector, to which his attention may never have been particularly called; and experience and observation render it notorious that the amount paid by purchasers as such sales is uniformly trifling in comparison with the value of the property sold." The above cited rules have been adopted in this jurisdiction in a long line of decisions. (Valencia vs . Jimenez, 11 Phil., 492, 498-499; Denoga vs . Insular Government, 19 Phil., 261; Camo vs . Riosa Boyco, 29 Phil., 445; Government of the P. I. vs . Adriano, 41 Phil., 113, Bernardino vs . Arzobispo, G. R. No. L-1086, 46 Off: Gaz. No. 12, page 6030; Ramos V. Villaverde et. al., vs . Ramos V. Forido, L-3655-56, promulgated April 28, 1951; Cortez vs . Ateneo de Manila (CA), 9587-R 49 Off. Gaz. No. 11, page 4910; Lucido vs . Isais, 43 Off. Gaz. No. 10, p. 4152; and Laico vs . Calupitan (CA), 47 Off. Gaz. No. 11, p. 5726. Viewed in the light of the foregoing principles the tax sale in question has unquestionably been rendered ineffective and void by the facts that the notice of sale by publication described the lot to be sold as lot No. 4-K while the lot which was delinquent was lot No. 4-R and the sale was made by the City Treasurer of Manila and not by the officer designated by law for that purpose, who, in this case, is the City assessor and Collector of the City of Manila. (Secs. 53 and 69, Republic Act No. 409) And Cooley states: "A deviation, however small, must be fatal because a rule of law cannot be made to fluctuate according to the degree or extent of its violation." (The law of taxation, supra , p. 2803). Contrary to the contention of appellants, the law is to the effect that the tax sale of registered land should be registered. Section 77 of Act 496 expressly provides, among other things, that whether a registered land is sold for taxes or for any assessment, any officer's return, or any deed, demand, certificate, or affidavit of any other instrument made in the course of proceedings to enforce such liens shall be filed with the Register of Deeds for the province where the land lies and registered in the registration book, and a memorandum made upon the proper certificate, in each case, as an adverse claim or encumbrance, and section 50 of the same Act 496 also expressly provides that the act or registration shall be the operative act to convey and affect the land. Consequently, the tax sale becomes binding on the property sold only from the date of its registration and the one-year period of redemption begins to run from said date. (Metropolitan Water District vs . Reyes, 74 Phil., 142-143.) LexLib Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against the appellants. Rodas and Martinez, JJ . , concur.