De Laico v. Calupitan

[CA No. 3500-R. August 22, 1949.] ROSARIO E. VDA. DE LAICO, in her own behalf and in her capacity as administratrix of the Estate of her deceased husband Ananias Laico , plaintiff and appellant , vs . MANUEL B. CALUPITAN and THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF LAGUNA , defendants and appellees . 1 Lorenzo G . Valentin for appellant. Josefina A . Calupitan for appellee Calupitan. The Provincial Fiscal of Laguna for appellee Provincial Treasurer of Laguna. SYLLABUS 1. SALE; PUBLIC AUCTION SALE; VALIDITY; EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW REGULARITY OF TAX SALE; REGULARITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, NOT PRESUMED. In this jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon the purchaser in a tax sale to show that the requirements of the law were complied with. Our Supreme Court in the case of Valencia vs . Jimenez, 11 Phil., 402, held that there is no presumption of regularity of an administrative proceeding which results in depriving a citizen or tax-payer of his property. Due process of law must be shown and the burden of showing regularity lies on the purchaser in the sale. (See also Camo vs . Riosa Boyco, 29 Phil., 445, and Jaleco vs . Torralba, 40 Off. Gaz., No. 7, p. 1490). 2. ID.; ID.; NOTICE OF SALE, HOW SERVED; DEATH OF PERSON TO BE SERVED TO ALL HEIRS. "If the person to be notified has died, notice of the sale must be given to his heirs or to his personal representative. It must appear on the record to whom the notice was served, designating him by name, and it is not sufficient if it is merely set forth that the notice was served upon 'the heirs' of the former owner of the land" (51 Am. Jur., 909 citing Conners vs . Lowell, 209 Mass. 111, 95 WE 412, Ann. Case 1912 B 627). All the heirs were entitled to notice of the tax sale (In re Safe Deposit & T. Co. [1915], 125 Md. 519.) 3. ID.; ID.; NOTICE IN CASES OF JOINT OWNERSHIP AND COTENANCY. Notice of tax sale should be given to each joint owner. Where it appeared that the land is owned by tenants in common, notice of the tax sale to one co-tenant only is insufficient, each co-tenant being entitled to notice (Howze vs . Dew [1890], 90 Ala. 178.) 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; INTERESTED PARTIES MUST ALL BE DULY NOTIFIED. Commonwealth Act No. 470, section 35, provides that copy of the notice of sale shall be forthwith sent by registered mail or by messenger to the delinquent taxpayer at his residence if known to the treasurer. In Jaleco vs . Torralba, supra , it was held that an auction sale of land forfeited to the Government for non-payment of tax is null and void where the interested parties were not duly notified of the said sale. D E C I S I O N GUTIERREZ DAVID , J p : Ten parcels of land situated in the municipality of Magdalena, Laguna, declared for taxation purposes in the name of Ananias Laico, became delinquent in the payment of taxes corresponding to the year 1940 in the sum of P81.10. These lands have a total area of 7 hectares, 37 ares and 83 centiares and an aggregate assessed value of P5,700. On August 5, 1941, the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna issued notices of sale at public auction of real estate properties located in the municipality of Magdalena delinquent in the payment of taxes in the years 1940-1941 among which were the aforesaid ten parcels of land to be held at the main entrance of the municipal building of said municipality on the 4th day of September 1941 at 10 a.m. (Exhibits 1, F and 18). The auction sale took place on said date. The successful bidder for the ten parcels of land in litigation was Manuel B. Calupitan, to whom they were awarded and sold by the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna upon payment by the latter of the sum of P88 (Exhibits 3 and 3-A). Certificates of sale were issued by the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna on the same date, September 4, 1941, to him, which were registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Laguna (Exhibits 2, 2-A to 2-I, also marked as A, A-1 to A-9). The redemption period having elapsed, final bills of sale were executed and delivered by the provincial treasurer to said Manuel B. Calupitan on November 3, 1943, which were likewise registered in the aforementioned Office of the Register of Deeds (Exhibits 5, 5-A to 5-I). On November 15, 1943, Rosario E. Vda. de Laico, on her own behalf and in her capacity as Administratrix of the intestate estate of her deceased husband Ananias Laico, filed this action with the Court of First Instance of Laguna against Manuel B. Calupitan seeking to redeem the 10 parcels of land in question and praying the court to compel the defendant to execute and deliver to her the corresponding deeds of redemption. Said complaint was later on amended by including therein the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna as party defendant and seeking to recover the possession of the ten parcels of land and the amount of P2,000 as damages. It is the contention of the plaintiff that before the expiration of the one-year period within which to redeem the properties in question, plaintiff Rosario E. Vda. de Laico was brought to Manila due to illness in August, 1942; that in view of her illness and difficulties of transportation facilities due to the war, she failed to redeem the properties on or before September 4, 1942; that she was, however, able to go back to Magdalena, Laguna, in October, 1942, for the purpose of redeeming the properties, but when she went to the municipal treasurer for that purpose, the latter informed her that she should see Manuel B. Calupitan as the period for redemption had already expired on September 4, 1942; that this she did, but Calupitan entertained her with different pretexts and promises, making her believe that she could redeem the properties after the war; that in order to protect her rights, upon advice of her son-in-law, Atty. Lorenzo J. Valentin, she filed the present action depositing with the clerk of court the sum of P81.10 for the payment of the redemption price, and with the Municipal Treasurer of Magdalena the same sum and for the same purpose on August 4, 1945; that she never received a copy of the notice of sale; and that the first time she learned about the auction sale of the properties in litigation was after the sale was held. Defendant Calupitan denied the allegation that plaintiff went to see him on October 6, 1942, to redeem the properties in question. He asserted that the first time that plaintiff ever came to him was on or about March 15, 1943, when he informed her that he was not disposed to sell the properties to her or to anybody else. He also denied that he made the alleged pretexts and promises in order to delay the redemption. He claimed that the redemption period having expired on September 4, 1912 plaintiff had no more right to redeem, so he was entitled to refuse to sell the properties; and that plaintiff's failure to redeem was not justifiable. Defendant Provincial Treasurer of Laguna made practically the same allegations as to the fact that plaintiff had lost all her rights of redemption and asserted that all the actuations and discharge of duties by his office in connection with the execution and issuance of the final bills of sale in favor of the defendant Calupitan were all done in accordance with law. After due trial, the lower court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint and confirming the sale made by the Treasurer of Laguna in favor of defendant Calupitan, with costs against the plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed. During the hearing of this case, plaintiff Rosario E. Vda. de Laico, without any objection, testified that she came to know of the public auction sale for the first time in the month of September, 1941, and after said sale had taken place. The defendants, on the other hand, tried to prove that the Municipal Treasurer, Mr. Democrito Santos, had sent notice of the auction sale addressed to the heirs of Ananias Laico and that plaintiff received the notice and signed on the corresponding registry return card. This fact was expressly denied by the plaintiff on rebuttal. Hence, the regularity of the auction sale became an issue in this case by the implied consent of the parties and may be treated as if it had been raised in the pleadings (Rule 17(3), Rules of Court). Moreover, since defendant Calupitan is claiming under the auction sale made to him and defendant Provincial Treasurer of Laguna asserts that his office has complied with the law, it is necessary to inquire into the regularity of said sale to determine whether or not defendant Calupitan has acquired better title to the lands in question. In this jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon the purchaser in a tax sale to show that the requirements of the law were complied with. Our Supreme Court in the case of Valencia vs . Jimenez, 11 Phil., 402, held that there is no presumption of regularity of an administrative proceeding which results in depriving a citizen or taxpayer of his property. Due process of law must be shown and the burden of showing regularity lies on the purchaser in the sale. (See also Camo vs . Riosa Boyco, 29 Phil., 445, and Jaleco vs . Torralba, 40 Off. Gaz., No. 7, p. 1490.) Some of the reasons of this ruling, as stated in the case of Lucido et al., vs . Isais et al., 43 Off. Gaz., No. 10, p. 4152, are the following: "The real estate tax authorized in the Assessment Law (Com. Act No. 470, section 5) constitutes a very small part (from 3/8 % to 1%) of the assessed value which is often lower than the market value of the property taxed. It is obvious, therefore, that the taxpayer should not be deprived of his property for tax delinquency except in strict conformity with the law authorizing and regulating tax sales. 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." "Exact and complete adherence to the laws governing tax sales is indispensable, therefore, not only for the protection of the taxpayer, but, also, to allay possible suspicion of collusion between the buyer and the public servants called upon to enforce such laws." As a matter of fact, the defendants endeavored to prove regularity in the sale by presenting copies of the notice of sale, the certificates of sale and final bills of sale, and the testimony of ex-Municipal Treasurer of Magdalena, Laguna, Mr. Democrito Santos. This witness testified that from March, 1940, until December 31, 1943, he was the Municipal Treasurer of Magdalena, Laguna; that in August, 1941, he received notices of sale of delinquent properties among which was Exhibit 1 which he posted in the bulletin board of the municipal building and other conspicuous places; that he sent copies of the said notices, thru registered mail, to each and every delinquent taxpayer mentioned in the notice; that as regards the properties of Ananias Laico, he sent the notice of sale to the "Heirs of Ananias Laico" because he knew that the latter was already dead; that he addressed the envelope to said heirs and sent it by registered mail; that he can not remember what other names he placed on the envelope; that he received the corresponding registry return card signed by the wife of Ananias Laico wherein she signed as "Rosario E. Vda. de Laico"; that said registry return card was on file in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Magdalena until he left said office at the end of the year 1943; and that he received the amount of P88 from defendant Calupitan as purchase price of the properties in question. The registry return card was not produced in evidence and the defendants, to explain its non-production, tried to establish that the records and files of the post-office and municipal treasurer's office of Magdalena, Laguna, were lost because the building was occupied by Japanese soldiers who used the papers they found in the treasurer' office for fuel. The court is loath to believe the testimony of the municipal treasurer regarding the registry return card which he alleged to have received and found signed by the plaintiff. It is highly incredible that he could remember these facts after the lapse of six or seven years, considering that he must have received hundreds of registry return cards from delinquent taxpayers during the year 1941 as can be seen in the list of delinquents in Exhibit 1 and return cards Exhibits C, C-1 to C-14, D, D-1 to D-4, E, E-1 to E-5. He cannot even remember now what other names were written on the envelope supposedly sent to the heirs of Ananias Laico. If the notice of sale was addressed to said "Heirs" alone, it is doubtful whether it was delivered to the plaintiff because, as it appears on the printed instructions in the registry return card, "A registered article must not be delivered to any one but to the addressee, or upon the addressee's written order in which case both the addressee's and the agent's signature must be secured." There is no showing that the plaintiff was duly authorized by the heirs of Ananias Laico to received the registered mail addressed to the latter. Furthermore, "if the person to be notified has died, notice of the sale must be given to his heirs or to his personal representative. It must appear on the record to whom the notice was served, designating him by name, and it is not sufficient if it is merely set forth that the notice was served upon 'the heirs' of the former owner of the land" (51 Am. Jur., 909 citing Conners vs . Lowell, 209 Mass. 111, 95 WE 412, Ann. Case 1912 B 627). In the case of Conners vs . Lowel supra , it was held: " . . . To say that a demand has been made upon the heirs of an intestate is not giving the name of the person upon whom the demand was made. The two sections cited impose upon the collector the duty of finding a resident heir, if there is one, making the demand upon him, and then naming him in the deed. To name a person is not the same as to described him. The name of a person is the distinctive characterization in words by which he is known and distinguished from others. Such a designating appellation was not given by the words 'heirs of' a person. Tax deeds lacking it are invalid." All the heirs were entitled to notice of the tax sale (In re Safe Deposit & T. Co. (1915), 125 Md. 519). In Adsit vs . Park (1919), 144 La. 934, it appeared that the land in question was owned jointly and that notice was addressed to one of the joint owners "et al." It was held that the statute was not complied with as notice should have been given to each joint owner. Again, where it appeared that the land was owned by tenants in common, it was held that notice of the tax sale to one co-tenant only was insufficient, each co-tenant being entitled to notice (Howze vs. Dew (1890) 90 Ala. 178). In the case at bar no effort whatsoever was made by the municipal treasurer to serve notice of the tax sale on the widow and children of the deceased Ananias Laico although they were all known to said treasurer and lived near the municipal building as the latter so admitted. Commonwealth Act No. 470, section 35 provides that copy of the notice of sale shall be forthwith sent by registered mail or by messenger to the delinquent taxpayer at his residence if known to the treasurer. In Jaleco vs . Torralba, 40 Off. Gaz., 1490, it was held that an auction sale of land forfeited to the government for non-payment of tax is null and void where the interested parties were not duly notified of the said sale. Although the defendants endeavored to discharge the task of proving compliance with the law as regards the tax sale under consideration, however they failed to prove observance of other requirements of Commonwealth Act No. 470 which likewise tend to protect the taxpayer, such as, that the notice of delinquency had been published as required by section 28; that the notice of tax sale was posted for three consecutive weeks at the main entrances of the provincial building and all municipal buildings of the province, and in a public and conspicuous place in the barrio wherein the property is situated; and that the sale was held at the place and time appearing in the notice. It goes without saying that each and everyone of the above requirements is intended to protect the taxpayer by affording him ample opportunity to pay the overdue taxes and to secure the highest possible price for his forfeited property and should be complied with exactly as prescribed. In view of the foregoing, the court is constrained to hold that the tax sale in favor of defendant Calupitan is null and void. With such conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider and discuss appellant's other assignment of error. aisadc Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. In lieu thereof, the tax sale in favor of defendant appellee Manuel B. Calupitan over the ten (10) parcels of land in question is declared null and void. Defendant Calupitan is ordered to reconvey said properties to the appellant, without prejudice to his right to demand reimbursement of the sum of P88 from the Provincial Government of Laguna, and the plaintiff is ordered to pay all the delinquent taxes of said parcels of land, plus penalties if any. No pronouncement as to costs. Reyes and Ocampo, JJ . , concur. Footnotes 1. See Resolution of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-3372 dated October 17, 1949. Petition for certiorari is dismissed, the questions raised being factual and unsubstantial.