Soriano v. Sarasa

[CA No. 22119-R. March 15, 1960.] JOSE L. SORIANO , plaintiff and appellant , vs . FLORENTINO SARASA, ET AL. , defendants and appellees . Teodoro V . Nano, for plaintiff and appellant. Castillo and Occea, for defendants and appellees. SYLLABUS 1. TAX SALE; VALIDITY; BURDEN OF PROOF OF REGULARITY. The power to sell land for unpaid taxes is purely statutory. When such power is granted, it must be exercised "exclusively under its terms and in the special statutory mode". Scrupulous adherence to the law is indispensable. Each and every step prescribed for the validity of such sale must be taken. The law is mandatory. Cortez vs. Ateneo de Manila, 49 O.G., No. 11, pp. 4910, 4914-4915, and authorities cited. "The law does not create a presumption of the regularity of any administrative action which results in depriving a citizen or taxpayer of his property, . . .". Cortez vs . Ateneo de Manila, supra p. 4915, citing: Valencia vs . Jimenez, 11 Phil., 492. And one who asserts in court the validity of a tax sale carries the burden of proof to show that the requirements of the statute were complied with strictly. Lucido, et al. vs. Isais, et al., 43 O.G., No. 10, pp. 4152, 4159-4160; Ramos vs . Florido, G.R. No. L-3656, April 28, 1951. Short of this duty, his case must fail; the sale must necessarily be declared null and void. Martinez, Aumentado, Escao Co., etc. vs . Aragon, etc. 51 O.G., No. 5, pp. 2435, 2440; Calupitan vs . Tan Chay, et al., CA-G.R. No. 12776-R, October 23, 1957. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REASONS FOR THE STRICTNESS OF THE LAW ON TAX SALE. Taxes on property usually are a very small fraction of the assessed value thereof. The assessed value, in turn, is often much lower than the market value. One year of delinquency may bring about forfeiture of the property to the government. Purchasers at tax sales, as a rule, bid for an amount very much below the market value. Without a competitor, such purchasers not infrequently bid for just the amount of the taxes due. A taxpayer, accordingly, must be afforded all reasonable legal guarantees against deprivation of property without due process of law. Every effort should be strained to the end that if private property were to be taken for a tax sale, it must be only when the owner thereof has been fully apprised of his obligation to pay the taxes due and of the steps taken to escheat the same to the government and, thereafter, of the proceedings on the auction sale thereof. Furthermore, "there is a great temptation to connive with tax officers and their subordinates, or otherwise resort to dubious means, in order to acquire, at a nominal price, real property delinquent in the payment of taxes". Lucido, et al., vs . Isais, et al., supra . D E C I S I O N SANCHEZ , J p : Suit to recover ownership of a 13.4320-hectare homestead situate in barrio Patulangon municipality of Sta. Cruz, Davao, and described in Original Certificate of Title No. 717 in the name of the deceased Magdalena Pandayan. Plaintiff claims that his predecessor-in-interest, Bernardino Solier, acquired that land at a tax sale. Defendants, upon the other hand, assert that their deceased mother, Magdalena Pandayan, paid the taxes on the land; that there was no due publication of notice of tax delinquency or of the proposed sale of the land at public auction to satisfy unpaid taxes thereon. The judgment below found for defendants, children of Magdalena Pandayan; declared them owners of the land and the improvements thereon; and directed plaintiff to pay them P500.00 as attorneys' fees, and the costs. Plaintiff appealed. For a backdrop, it may be well to look into the circumstances of the persons involved. Bernardino Solier who allegedly purchased the property in question then assessed at P1,260.00 (Exhibit O-2) at the tax sale held on July 14, 1938 for the sum of P75.18, is the father-in-law of appellant Jose L. Soriano. At the time of the alleged auction sale and prior thereto and up to about the end of 1947, appellant was a clerk in the municipal treasurer's office of Sta. Cruz, Davao. Before the war, the money for taxes on said property were turned over by Florentino Sarasa, administrator thereof, to appellant who made the payments. Magdalena Pandayan, mother of appellees, was a Tagacaolo or non-Christian. None of her children, appellees Florentino, Salvador, Beatriz and Francisco, all surnamed Sarasa, ever had any schooling. Florentino Sarasa is ignorant; he does not even know how to write or when he was born. Pursuant to Homestead Patent No. 20712, Original Certificate of Title No. 717 covering the disputed land was issued by the Register of Deeds of Davao in favor of Magdalena Pandayan on December 17, 1932. Exhibit T. During the war, that Torrens Title was lost. On November 15, 1946, a new owner's duplicate thereof was issued to Magdalena Pandayan in lieu of the lost copy which was declared null and void. Exhibits 8 and T. Magdalena Pandayan died in Patulangon, Sta. Cruz, Davao, on February 7, 1949. Exhibit 5. She was succeeded by her children, the four appellees herein. By virtue of an extra-judicial partition entered into between appellees Florentino, Salvador, Beatriz and Francisco, all surnamed Sarasa, on April 15, 1955, Original Certificate of Title No. 717 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, the Register of Deeds of Davao issued on May 7, 1955 Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1612 in their names as owners of one-fourth share each. Exhibit 9. Magdalena Pandayan, in her lifetime, and her children after her death, had been in continuous and adverse possession of the land to the exclusion of all others. They enjoyed the fruits thereof, paid the taxes thereon. 1. Did Bernardino Solier, alleged predecessor-in-interest of appellant, lawfully acquire the property in controversy at a tax sale? Appellant's documentary evidence worth mentioning on this point follow: Exhibit A A certified copy of the minutes of the special session of the Provincial Board of Davao (Resolution No. 605, August 10, 1938). This document recites that there was read at the session a letter dated July 19, 1938 forwarding to that body for approval Form No. 202 of the Municipal Treasurer of Sta. Cruz, "relative to the sale at public auction of the forfeited real properties", amongst which was the controverted property, then described in Tax Declaration No. 6829 of Magdalena Pandayan, purchased by one Bernardo Solier; and that the board resolved to return the said papers "duly approved". The Provincial Treasurer's letter of July 19, 1938 is nowhere to be found. Neither was Provincial Form No. 202 produced in court. Exhibit J Final bill of sale over the land in question signed by Jose R. Collante, provincial treasurer, in favor of Bernardino (not Bernardo) Solier. Notwithstanding the fact that the alleged sale took place on July 14, 1938, this final bill of sale was executed only on April 10, 1950, or almost 12 years later. Noteworthy is the fact that according to this exhibit, the papers referring to the advertisement for the auction sale of the property for tax delinquency are "not available". This final bill of sale was executed pursuant to a letter of request sent to the Provincial Treasurer by Bernardino Solier on March 15, 1950. Exhibit K. That letter listed, amongst others, the so-called "Form No. 201 Certificate of Sale of Forfeited Real Property". Strange enough, neither this nor any of the other documents bearing on the sale and listed as Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Exhibit K was produced in Court. Pedro M. Domingo, Chief Deputy Assessor of Davao Province, could not produce them. They could not be located. Exhibits N-1 O and O-1 These are papers showing the approval by the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources of the final bill of sale. The task of procuring said final bill of sale and its approval was undertaken solely by appellant. Exhibit C Tax Declaration No. 9833 in the name of Bernardino Solier covering the property, presented to bolster the claim that really said Bernardino Solier acquired said property at a tax sale. This tax declaration was purportedly signed by Solier on July 14, 1938 the very date of the alleged public auction sale. This document bears close scrutiny. On the face thereof the following appears: "(Bought Public Auction Provincial Board Res. No. 605 S. 1938)". How this annotation came about is not explained. The board resolution was passed long after the tax declaration was supposedly made August 10, 1938. In the normal course of events, it is improbable that Solier could have subscribed and sworn to this tax declaration on July 14, 1938. If this tax declaration really were in existence as of the date thereof, then it challenges credulity why, thereafter, taxes were not paid thereon. Appellant admitted that while he paid for Bernardino Solier his father-in-law taxes on the latter's land in Digos, Davao, no payment was ever made for those on the disputed land. In 1947, appellant caused said tax declaration to be cancelled by Tax Declaration No. 5822 in his name. Exhibit D. But it was only in 1957 that appellant requested the application of his back-pay for the payment of the taxes in arrears thereon; and such payment to cover solely the period from 1951 to 1956. Exhibit P. These tax declarations to say the least, are of suspicious origin. The foregoing do not sufficiently establish the fact that Bernardino (not Bernardo) Solier purchased the property at a tax sale. The paucity of evidence will not authorize a conclusion favorable to the alleged purchaser. But, let us go to the pith of the case. Were the statutory requirements in the sale of the land for tax delinquency complied with? By way of preface, it may be well to state that the power to sell land for unpaid taxes is purely statutory. When such power is granted, it must be exercised "exclusively under its terms and in the special statutory mode". Scrupulous adherence to the law is indispensable. Each and every step prescribed for the validity of such sale must be taken. The law is mandatory. Cortez vs . Ateneo de Manila, 49 O.G., No. 11, pp. 4910, 4914-4915, and authorities cited. A rule to which jurisprudence has adhered with impressive unanimity is that "The law does not create a presumption of the regularity of any administrative action which results in depriving a citizen or taxpayer of his property, . . .". Cortez vs . Ateneo de Manila, supra , p. 4915, citing: Valencia vs . Jimenez, 11 Phil., 492. One who asserts in court the validity of a tax sale carries the burden of proof to show that the requirements of the statute were complied with strictly. Lucido, et al. vs . Isais, et al., 43 O.G., No. 10, pp. 4152, 4150-4160; Ramos vs . Florido, G.R. No. L-3656, April 28, 1951. Short of this duty, his case must fail; the sale must necessarily be declared null and void. Martinez, Aumentado, Escao Co., etc. vs . Aragon, etc., 51 O.G., No. 5, pp. 2435, 2440; Calupitan vs . Tan Chay, et al., CA-G.R. No. 12776-R, October 23, 1957. cdt Reason is not wanting for the legal precepts just recited. Taxes on property usually are a very small fraction of the assessed value thereof. The assessed value, in turn, is often much lower than the market value. One year of delinquency may bring about forfeiture of the property to the government. Purchasers at tax sales, as a rule, bid for an amount very much below the market value. Without a competitor, such purchasers not infrequently bid for just the amount of the taxes due. A taxpayer, accordingly, must be afforded all reasonable legal guarantees against deprivation of property without due process of law. Every effort should be strained to the end that if private property were to be taken for a tax sale, it must be only when the owner thereof has been fully apprised of his obligation to pay the taxes due and of the steps taken to escheat the same to the government and, thereafter, of the proceedings on the auction sale thereof. Furthermore, as was pointed out in Lucido, et al. vs . Isais, et al., supra , at p. 4160, "there is a great temptation to connive with tax officers and their subordinates, or otherwise resort to dubious means, in order to acquire, at a nominal price, real property delinquent in the payment of taxes". With the foregoing as our guideposts, let us examine appellant's evidence on this score. By Section 29 of the Assessment Law, upon real property tax becoming delinquent, the provincial treasurer shall immediately cause a notice of delinquency to be posted in the places indicated specifying, amongst others, that unless the tax is paid in one year from the date of delinquency, the said property will be forfeited and escheat to the provincial government. Evidence of compliance of this requirement is conspicuous by its absence. The property, therefore, has not become "indefeasibly vested in the provincial government" of Davao within the meaning of Section 36 of the same law. Hence, the sale thereof by the latter if any was illegal. Then, Section 38 of the Assessment Law directs that after such delinquency has occurred, the government must publish an announcement of distraint of real property by posting notices "at the main entrances of the provincial building and of all municipal buildings of the province, and in a public and conspicuous place in the barrio wherein the property is situated, in English, Spanish, and the prevailing local dialect"; and "a copy of said notice shall also be posted on the property distrained". That notice must state, inter alia , that "unless such taxes and penalties shall be paid within ninety days from the date of publication of such notice the forfeiture of delinquent real property to the provincial government will become absolute". No such notice was ever shown to have been made. Quite the contrary, the evidence is to the effect that no such notice was ever posted. Appellant did not as much as attempt to exhibit in court a copy of said notice. A second roadblock astride the route to appellant's recovery, is here present. Assuming, however, that the embargo of the property in question had become absolute, we are again confronted with Section 41 of the same law which requires the provincial treasurer, prior to the sale at public auction, to announce such sale "if repurchase has not been made". Such announcement is to be made by posting notices in the same places and in the same languages specified in Section 38 heretofore adverted to. In addition, the law commands that the notice be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the province, if there be any; that a copy of the notice "shall be forthwith sent by registered mail to the delinquent taxpayer at his residence", if known to said treasurer; and that said notice shall set forth "the amount of the taxes and penalties due, the date and place of the sale, the name of the taxpayer against whom the taxes were assessed and the approximate area, the lot number and the location, stating the street, number, district, barrio, municipality and province where the real property to be sold is situated". We underscore this strict requirement of the law. And yet, it is odd that not even one single piece of paper evidencing the posting of notices, its publication, or, for that matter, the notice to the taxpayer was ever spread before the court. Once again, we say that the alleged sale is null and void. Worse, the foregoing confirms the doubts existing in the mind of this Court that the auction sale of the property in question in favor of Bernardino Solier ever took place. 2. But, let us assume arguendo that there was such a sale for tax delinquency and that the same was consummated in strict accord with the legal mandate. Even then, appellant may not recover the property from appellees. Neither the certificate of sale nor the final bill of sale which should have been issued within one year from the date of the sale was ever recorded on Original Certificate of Title No. 717 of Magdalena Pandayan, or on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1612 in the name of appellees. Anent the starting point of the one-year period for redemption set forth in Section 44 of the Assessment Law, the Supreme Court has declared that "the period of redemption of one year should start from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale or the final deed of sale in favor of the purchaser". Santos vs . Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, et al., G.R. No. L-9796, July 31, 1957, citing: Metropolitan Water District vs . Reyes, 74 Phil., 143; Tolentino vs . Agcaoili, G.R. No. L-4349-51, May 28, 1952; Pea, Land Titles and Deeds, 1955 Rev. ed., Sec. 25, p. 278. This doctrine is affirmed in Techico vs . Serrano, G.R. No. L-12693, May 29, 1959. On the assumption, therefore, that the alleged sale is valid which is not the case appellant, successor-in-interest of the alleged purchaser, Bernardino Solier, cannot recover the property from appellees; the latter's right to the land have not yet been legally foreclosed. 3. Viewed from a different angle, appellant has lost his right to recover the land. He is guilty of laches. The sale purportedly took place on July 14, 1938. We join the lower court in stating that the evidence is conclusive that appellees and their predecessor-in-interest, Magdalena Pandayan, had been in continuous possession of the property since prior to the alleged sale and up to the present. The failure of appellant and his grantor to bestir themselves for so long a period of time before they filed suit against appellees on April 29, 1955 and significantly, after the death of the taxpayer, Magdalena Pandayan is strongly indicative of the fact that neither the one nor the other considered himself as owner of the land. Vigilantibus non dormientibus equitas subvenit . Etorma vs. Villarubia, et al., CA-G.R. No. 6937-R, February 28, 1955, citing: Buenaventura vs. David, 37 Phil., 435, 441. 4. Last to be considered is appellees' right to attorneys' fees. Appellant knew Magdalena Pandayan. In fact, before the war, money for the taxes on the property in question were handed to appellant then an employee in the treasurer's office in Sta. Cruz, Davao for payment to the government. Appellant also knew Magdalena's children, now the appellees. If appellant were to be believed, the tax sale occurred in 1938. He kept this all to himself. He did not inform the taxpayer. The alleged purchaser, Bernardino Solier, did nothing to protect his rights under that alleged sale. There was appellant who, since about the early part of 1930, worked with his former co-employees in the tax office to prepare the necessary papers calculated to show a tax sale. He has harrassed appellees by denouncing the latter to the Chief of Police of Sta. Cruz in reference to the land. Exhibit V. He has caused appellees to engage the services of counsel to protect the latter's rights in reference to the cancellation of the tax declaration of Magdalena Pandayan. Exhibits H and I. He finally filed this suit. Correctly, the lower court allowed appellees attorneys' fees in the sum of P500.00. Article 2208, par. 11, Civil Code. Conformably to the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against plaintiff-appellant Jose L. Soriano. aisadc IT IS SO ORDERED. Natividad and Angeles, JJ . , concur.