Romero v. Pilapil

[CA No. 13353-R. May 31, 1957.] MARCELINA ROMERO and POTENCIANO PRESTORA , plaintiffs and appellees , vs . TIBURCIO PILAPIL, JOSE GAVARA and ANDRES DONDIS, defendants , CO PE SOY , intervenor and appellant . Marcelo Y . Garchitorena for intervenor and appellant. Cea & Zurbano and Borja & Surtida for plaintiffs and appellees. SYLLABUS 1. TAX SALE; REGULARITY OF TAX SALE, "ONUS PROBANDI". "There is no presumption of the legality of any administrative proceeding which results in depriving a citizen or a taxpayer of his property. Due process of law must be shown, and the burden of proving the regularity of all proceedings leading up to a tax sale is upon the purchaser at the sale." (Syllabus No. 1, Valencia vs. Jimenez, et al., 11 Phil. 492). 2. ID.; ID.; LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IN TAX SALE MANDATORY. The requirements of the law relative to sales at public auction of real properties for delinquency in the payment of taxes as provided for in sections 35 and 36 of the Assessment Law (C. A. No. 470) are mandatory in character. D E C I S I O N SANTIAGO , J p : In their original and amended complaints filed in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur and dated, respectively, September 26 and October 17, both of the year 1951, plaintiffs pray ( a ) that they be declared the owners of a parcel of hemp (abaca) land situated in the barrio of San Roque, Municipality of Lagonoy, Camarines Sur, having an area of 17.1626 hectares; bounded on the north by Lagonoy River, on the east by Pedro Mendoza; on the south by Julio Gavosa, Pedro Mendoza and Bernardo Bermejo, and on the west by Binayaan River; declared for taxation purposes in the name of Marcelina Romero under Tax No. 6165, assessed at P1,990.00; and ( b ) that defendants be condemned to pay them P1,000.00 as damages and for the costs of the action. They also pray for any other relief which may be deemed just and equitable. cdtech In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that they are the owners and possessors since 1938 of the land in question, which is that referred to and described in the next preceding paragraph; that their possession together with that of their predecessors in interest has been for over twenty years, said possession being continuous, public, uninterrupted and in the concept of owners; that on July 11, 1951 the defendants Tiburcio Pilapil and Jose Gavara, taking advantage of plaintiffs' absence, for they were then in Manila, and at the instance and instigation of their co-defendant Andres Dondis, who claims ownership over the property, entered and took possession of the said parcel of land; and that on account of the illegal acts of defendants, they suffered damages in the amount of P1,000.00 per annum. On January 21, 1952, Co Pe Suy, with the Court's leave, intervened in the case. In his complaint in intervention, he alleges that he is of age, married and actually residing in the City of Bacolod, Negros Occidental, while plaintiffs and defendants are also of legal age, residing at Lagonoy, Camarines Sur, with the exception of Andres Dondis who resides at Naga, Camarines Sur; that he is the absolute owner thru inheritance from his deceased father, Co Lea, of the parcel of land in question; that since time immemorial, he, together with his predecessor in interest have been in quiet, peaceful and continuous possession thereof in the concept of owners; that plaintiffs and defendants without any right whatsoever have illegally entered and claimed possession and ownership of the land in question; and that by reason of the illegal acts of said plaintiffs and defendants, he has suffered damages in the amount of P1,000.00 per year. He prays that he be declared the absolute owner of the property in dispute; and that the plaintiffs and defendants be condemned to pay him P1,000.00 annually, jointly and severally, from the filing of the complaint in intervention until the delivery of the same; and that he be granted any other relief which is just and equitable in the premises. On February 2, 1952, defendant Andres Dondis filed his answer to plaintiffs' amended complaint and to the complaint in intervention, denying generally and specifically, all and each of the allegations contained in both pleadings, except those which refer to the age and residence of all the parties of the case. He sets up the special defense that he is the only person who has interest in the defense in this case and therefore alleges that he is the legitimate possessor in good faith, as owner of the property in question, for more than twenty years, including the possession of his predecessors; that plaintiffs have no right to the possession and ownership of the land in question for the reason that taking advantage of the uncertain days of the last war, they took possession by force of the land in question with the help of some "guerilleros", which possession, acquired in bad faith, was lost to them after liberation, although in the year 1945 by means of an affidavit presented in the Office of the Provincial Assessor of the province, they were able to have in their names the property in question; that the intervenor who alleges as the true heir of the deceased Chinaman Co Lea has never been recognized as such; that granting but not admitting that the Chinaman Co Lea is the legitimate possessor and owner of the land in question, the said Chino Co Lea never exercised acts of ownership over the land in question because he never had any deed of sale in his favor, except that for a period of less than 10 years he retained in his possession the property in question as a mortgage creditor, which enabled him to register in his name for taxation purposes the property in question and to enjoy the fruits thereof as an antichretic creditor (as if there is no difference between mortgage and antichresis); but, after the death of the said Chinese Co Lea, the possession of the property as well as the enjoyment of its fruits returned to the legitimate owner and possessor; that plaintiffs' complaint as well as the complaint of the intervenor are both malicious, made in bad faith, without basis and without any other purposes than to prejudice him (the defendant Andres Dondis), so that the latter claims P4,000.00 for material and moral damages. He prays that the plaintiffs and the intervenor be ordered ( a ) to respect his possession and ownership of the property in question; ( b ) to order the plaintiffs and intervenor to pay him jointly and severally the sum of P4,000.00 for material and moral damages; and ( c ) the costs. He also prays for any other remedy which may be considered just, legal and equitable. Plaintiffs, on February 11, 1952, answered the complaint in intervention alleging that they have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of the complaint in intervention and set up the special defense that the parcel of land in question belongs to them and that they have been in possession thereof as owners since 1938 and that said possession had been continuous, public and uninterrupted, and that it was on June 11, 1951 when the defendants forcibly entered the land and claimed ownership over the same. On February 11, 1952, plaintiffs answered the counterclaim of the defendant Andres C. Dondis alleging that the damages claimed by the said defendant in the amount of P4,000.00 are imaginary, fictitious and have no legal basis. Answering the complaint in intervention, the defendants Tiburcio Pilapil and Jose Gavara (1) admit paragraph I of said complaint in intervention respecting the capacities of the parties, and (2) that they have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs II, III, IV and V of the complaint in intervention, admitting, however, the identity of the land in question. They set up the defense that "the defendant Tiburcio Pilapil is merely an 'encargado' duly appointed by his co-defendant Andres C. Dondis and defendant Jose Gavara is merely a laborer employed by his co-defendant Tiburcio Pilapil, both of them not claiming over the land in question." At a pre-trial held on July 15, 1952, the parties, thru their respective attorneys, entered into the following stipulation of facts: "1. That the land in question is correctly described in paragraph 2 of the amended complaint; "2. That about two (2) hectares of this land is planted with abaca, the remaining being covered with bushes, and that the annual production of abaca is worth about P64.00 for the land owner; and "3. That the defendants Tiburcio Pilapil and Jose Gavara have no claim of ownership over the property, they being only the tenants of Mr. Andres Dondis." (Record on Appeal, p. 26). On plaintiffs' petition, and with the conformity of the intervenor, the court a quo appointed Mr. Geronimo Froyalde, Municipal Treasurer of Lagonoy, receiver in the case upon a bond of P1,000.00. (Record on Appeal, p. 30). On March 24, 1954, the trial court, thru the Hon. Jose T. Surtida, Judge, rendered its decision in the case, the dispositive part of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered declaring the plaintiffs lawful owners of the land in question, ordering defendant Andres Dondis to vacate the premises and to return its possession to the plaintiffs, ordering him further to pay the plaintiffs P120 as damages and P64 annually until the land is fully restored to them and the costs of this action, and dismissing the claim of the intervenor. SO ORDERED." (Record on Appeal p. 40.) Not satisfied with the said decision, the intervenor Co Pe Suy, thru counsel, appealed to this Court, contending that the court a quo erred: 1. In declaring that the land in question was sold at public auction by the provincial treasurer of Camarines Sur for delinquency on the payment of land taxes (por morosidad en el pago de la contribucin territorial); 2. In declaring that the plaintiffs had been in quiet and adverse possession against the whole world of the land in question and as a consequence had acquired the land by prescription; 3. In declaring that as Co Lea & Co. failed to pay the taxes from 1940 to 1951, he lost the possession of the land in question; and 4. In declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute. 1. Appellant impugns the validity of the sale at public auction alleged by the plaintiffs-appellees to have been made by the provincial treasurer of Camarines Sur. He contends that it is the municipal treasurer of the municipality where the land is located who is authorized by law to sell property for delinquency in the payment of land taxes. He forgets that all municipal treasurers are deputies of provincial treasurers. However, what we consider to be of transcendental importance in title to land alleged to have been acquired at public auction for delinquency in the payment of taxes is the answer to the question, upon whom lies the onus probandi relative to the procedure followed in the sale at public auction? The trial judge in his decision states: "That it was sold in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law is to be presumed." (R. on A., p. 36.) This is the general rule. When it comes to properties distrained for delinquency in the payment of land taxes, the rule is different. "There is no presumption of the legality of any administrative proceeding which results in depriving a citizen or a taxpayer of his property. Due process of law must be shown, and the burden of proving the regularity of all proceedings leading up to a tax sale is upon the purchaser at the sale." (Syllabus No. 1, Valencia vs . Jimenez, et al., 11 Phil. 492). In the case of Martinez, Aumentado, Escao Co vs . Republic of the Philippines, CA-G. R. No. 8127-R, November 18, 1954, 51 Off. Gaz. No. 5, p. 2435, May 1955, this Court, thru Associate Justice Martinez stated: "In passing, it is to be noted that the property in question was distrained by the municipal treasurer of Cotabato, for delinquency in the payment of taxes, and later, sold for delinquency in the payment of taxes, at public auction. The evidence fails, however, to reveal in what manner the sale was made. This, under the principle adhered to in this jurisdiction, should be clearly shown by the purchaser if the propriety of the sale (in a tax collection) is to be sustained. 'The American law does not create a presumption of the regularity of any administrative action which results in depriving a citizen or taxpayer of his property, but, on the contrary, the due process of law to be followed in tax proceedings must be established by proof and the general rule is that the purchaser of a tax title is bound to take upon himself the burden of showing the regularity of all proceedings leading up to the sale.' (Valencia vs . Jimenez, 11 Phil. 492-498-500). "And this principle has consistently been maintained, as may be seen in the cases of Gamo vs . Riosa Boyco, 29 Phil., 437; Adriano Soncuya vs . Montefrio, CA-G. R. No. 5573-R, October 23, 1951; Lauro vs . Almodal, CA-G. R. No. 6163-R, October 29, 1951. The sale was, therefore, null and void and hence, the Government of the Philippines could not have lawfully acquired the property so sold." And in the case of Borja et al. vs . De Borja, CA-G. R. No. 13127-R, April 20, 1956, this Court, speaking thru Associate Justice Paredes, in part, states: LLphil "It was not clear from the evidence of record in what manner and for what amount and penalties and what particular properties were auctioned by the government; whether there was advertisement and whether all the heirs were notified of such public sale, considering the fact that there was an allegation that the properties in question did no longer belong to the estate of the supposed delinquent taxpayer, Bernardo de Borja. xxx xxx xxx But again, there is no showing of the circumstances surrounding the sale of the properties in question, at public auction. While it shall be presumed that official duties were regularly performed by the deputy treasurer and the sheriff, in connection with the auction and redemption sales, still we are of the firm belief that when it comes to depriving a tax-payer of his properties, courts should give him all the opportunity to defend his rights. 'There is no presumption of the regularity of any administrative proceeding which results in depriving a citizen or taxpayer of his property. Due process of law must be shown; and the burden of proving the regularity of all proceedings leading up to a tax sale is upon the purchaser at the sale.' (Valencia vs . Jimenez et al., 11 Phil., 492; Lucido vs . Isais et al., 43 Off. Gaz., 4152; Ramirez vs . Ilagan et al., CA-G. R. No. 6727-R, May 10, 1952). It is indisputable that the requirements of the law relative to sales at public auction of real properties for delinquency in the payment of taxes as provided for in Secs. 35 and 36 of the Assessment Law (C. A. No. 470) are mandatory in character. In the instant case no primary evidence was presented as to whether there had been ( a ) proper advertisement, ( b ) notice to taxpayer, ( c ) consideration for the sale, etc., etc. If the document concerning the sale and purchase were lost in the possession of Atty. Luntok, convincing secondary evidence should have been presented. On the contrary, Municipal Treasurer Agapito Oquindo testified that from 1936 to 1942 there had never been a sale of real properties for delinquency in the payment of taxes in Lagonoy, Camarines Sur. 2 and 3. Our New Civil Code provides: "ART. 5. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity." (Emphasis supplied). "ART. 2254. No vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others." (Emphasis supplied.) Article 5 has been taken from paragraph 1 of article 4 of the old Civil Code. Plaintiffs-appellees are therefore barred from acquiring title to the property in question by acquisitive prescription, nor can it be said that Co Lea & Co. had lost their possession of the land in question by his mere failure to pay the taxes for the years 1940 to 1941. 4. WHEREFORE, we reverse the decision appealed from, declaring ( a ) the intervenor-appellant Co Pe Suy as the lawful owner of the land in question; and ( b ) ordering the defendant Andres Dondis to vacate the premises and to return its possession to said intervenor-appellant and to pay the latter P128 as damages and P64 annually until the land is fully restored to him, and the costs of this action. LexLib SO ORDERED. Ocampo and San Jose, JJ ., concur.