Valenciano v. Hernandez

[CA No. 41392-R. May 27, 1974.] * JESUS VALENCIANO , petitioner and appellee, vs . HEIRS OF MAXIMO C. HERNANDEZ , oppositors and appellants . Claro P . Ison for oppositors and appellants. Paredes, Rodriguez & Sipin for petitioner and appellee. SYLLABUS 1. TAX SALES; QUEZON CITY; WAIVER OF ISSUE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. In tax sales, the question of non-compliance with all the requirements of Section 57 of Republic Act No. 537, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of Quezon City, is waived by the failure to allege such non-compliance on time. 2. ID.; ID.; VALIDITY OF SALE IRRESPECTIVE OF NATURE OF PROPERTY AND WHO IS THE OWNER. In tax sales, the government can reach the delinquent property regardless of who the owner is at the time of the sale and irrespective as to whether it is unregistered or registered land. D E C I S I O N GAVIOLA , JR ., J p : In an order, the trial court granted the petition for consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new certificate of title filed by Jesus Valenciano, the herein appellee. cdta From this order, the herein appellant elevated the case on appeal on the following assignment of errors: "I. That the trial court erred in finding that there was sufficient and complete compliance with the requirements of the law in their auction sale by the city treasurer of Quezon City of the property under litigation." "II. That granting arguendo, that there was a compliance, the trial court erred in finding that the appellee lawfully acquired by virtue of the same the right of ownership of the appellant over the said property." It appears that the land in question was purchased sometime in 1944 by Mrs. Paz Rubio from the Philippine Trust Company. This property was later sold by said Mrs. Paz Rubio to the spouses Bernardo Custodio and Juana Hernandez on June 19, 1948. The property was subsequently sold to Maximo Hernandez, married to Rosario C. Cruz. On this latter sale of the property, a new certificate of title was issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on June 25, 1948. On December 11, 1964, the city treasurer of Quezon City conducted a public auction sale for several properties in the city which had been found delinquent in the payment of the corresponding real estate taxes, and among the properties sold at the said public auction was the property in question. The appellee, in the said public auction sale, was the successful bidder and was accordingly issued a certificate of sale by the treasurer of Quezon City. After the lapse of the one year redemption period on June 24, 1966 the appellee filed a petition with the lower court for consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new certificate of title. Mrs. Paz Rubio was served notice of the petition. There having been no opposition thereto, the lower court granted the petition on September 21, 1966 and ordered the issuance of a new certificate of title to the appellee after directing the cancellation of the certificate of title in the name of Mrs. Paz Rubio. The Register of Deeds of Quezon City refused to cancel the title and issue a new certificate of title to the appellee on the ground that the certificate of title of Mrs. Rubio had been cancelled by TCT No. 6966 in the name of Maximo Hernandez, (Father of the appellant) on March 20, 1967. Appellee, therefore, filed a petition with the lower court for a supplementary order praying, among other things, for the cancellation of the title certificate in the name of Maximo C. Hernandez. On April 21, 1967, the heirs of Maximo C. Hernandez filed an opposition to the said petition on the principal ground that the appellee, by virtue of the auction sale conducted by the city treasurer of Quezon City, could not have acquired the right of ownership over the property and that the said public auction failed to fully and completely comply with the requirements of the law. The opposition was, however, denied by the lower court. A motion for reconsideration was similarly denied, thus the herein petition. The foregoing facts, as stated by the herein appellant, are not in dispute. The appellee, however, adds that on December 11, 1964 the city treasurer of Quezon City sold the property in question at a public auction sale because of a tax payment delinquency, and that the sale was conducted with sufficient compliance of the requirements of the law. cdtech On the foregoing, it thus appears that the question that is to be resolved is whether or not the requirements of the law were observed in the conduct of the auction sale. On the point the appellant argues: that the evidence adduced by the herein appellee does not show that notice of sale was posted over a period of 30 days; that the notice of such sale was served upon the owner thereof, Maximo C. Hernandez, represented in this petition by his heirs; that the same therefore contravenes Section 57 of Rep. Act No. 537, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of Quezon City which provides: "SECTION 57. Tax Sale . In addition to the procedure prescribed in Sec. 53 hereof the City Treasurer may upon the warrant of the certified record required in said section and after the lapse of not less than twenty (20) days after delinquency, advertise the real estate of the delinquent for sale or so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy all public taxes upon said property including penalties and costs of sale, for a period of thirty (30) days. "The advertisement shall be made by posting a notice at the main entrance of the City Hall and in a public and conspicuous place in the district in which the real estate lies and by publication once a week for three (3) weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City if any there be . . . (Emphasis supplied)." that this is so, since the only evidence adduced shows that there was publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Quezon City regarding the said tax sale, but that the other requirements enumerated under the quoted section of Rep. Act 537 had not been satisfied. We do not agree. When the Register of Deeds of Quezon City refused, over the first order of the trial court, to issue a new certificate of title in the name of the appellee, on the ground that the title of said Mrs. Rubio to the property had been cancelled by TCT No. 6966 in the name of Maximo C. Hernandez, the appellee filed a petition for supplementary order with the lower court and Mr. Maximo C. Hernandez was served notice of such petition. In fact, Maximo C. Hernandez opposed the petition and the opposition was anchored on the following: xxx xxx xxx "4. That the aforementioned order of this Honorable Court refers only to the property of Mrs. Paz Rubio sold at public auction by the City Treasurer of Quezon City for tax delinquency since 1948 1964; Incidentally, said property above-described and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6966 in the name of Maximo C. Hernandez of Paraaque, Rizal; "5. That at the time of the auction sale, Mrs. Paz Rubio was no longer the owner of the above-described real property. The exhibits presented by petitioner would show that said property was sold by Mrs. Paz Rubio to spouses Bernardo Custodio and Juana Hernandez on May 25, 1944 who in turn sold the same to Maximo C. Hernandez on June 23, 1948; "6. That the sale of public auction of the above described property did not bind the registered owner thereof, Maximo C. Hernandez. All notices on said sale referred to the property of Mrs. Paz Rubio whose title over the same had long been cancelled in favor of Maximo C. Hernandez. Petitioner therefore, acquired only the right and interest of Mrs. Paz Rubio over the said property and inasmuch as she was no longer the owner of the same at the time of the auction sale, petitioner acquired no right and interest therein. Under the principle of caveat emptor petitioner took his risk in the same manner as all other vendees in auction sales; "7. That the aforecited order of the Honorable Court being with reference only to the property of Mrs. Paz Rubio sold at public auction by the City Treasurer of Quezon City, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's petition to consolidate ownership and cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6966 of Maximo C. Hernandez." (page 35, Record on Appeal) In short, appellants' argument is that, since the property was owned by Maximo C. Hernandez, and notice of the petition for the consolidation of title was served upon its previous owner, Mrs. Paz Rubio, who had sold the said property to Bernardo Custodio and Juana Hernandez who likewise subsequently sold the said property to Maximo C. Hernandez, the father of the herein appellants, the order of the court granting the petition did not bind the heirs of Maximo C. Hernandez. But the opposition of the appellants did not allege that the sale was made without complying with the requirements of Section 57 of Rep. Act No. 537. In fact this point was raised for the first time only in appellants' motion for reconsideration dated August 21, 1967. It is quite evident therefore that the alleged non-compliance of the aforesaid requirement was waived when the appellants, in their opposition to the motion for supplementary order, did not raise the question of sufficiency of the advertisements of the notice of the public auction sale. Under the rule on omnibus , motions all objections to a pleading then available must be included and all objections not so included are deemed waived except lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. (Rili, et al. vs . Chunaco, et al., 48 O.G. 614) failure to state a cause of action and imperfect venue. (De Jesus vs . Manglapus, 81 Phil. 114; Community Investment etc. vs . Garcia, L-2338, Feb. 27, 1951; Reyes et al. vs . Court of Appeals, et al., L-5618 and L-5620, July 31, 1954.) But even on the assumption that the issue could still be raised, we agree with the appellee that he was not duty bound to prove that there was regularity in the conduct of the public auction sale. This is so, since the evidence showed that an auction sale was made by the City Treasurer of Quezon City. Regularity of procedure prescribed by law being presumed, the appellee therefore did not have to show the details of the sale unless evidence was adduced to the contrary. Illegally is not presumed but must be duly and adequately proved (Liguea vs . Court of Appeals, L-11240, Dec. 18, 1957). It is pointed out in appendix A of appellee's brief that the notice of public auction sale was in fact posted at the main entrance of the city hall in Quezon City; in a public and conspicuous place in which the real estate lies, and, by publication once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in Quezon City as required by law and as attested to by the certification of the city treasurer of Quezon City. This settles the first assignment of error. On the second assignment of error, suffice it to say that the property under litigation was delinquent in the payment of taxes. This is not in dispute. It being delinquent, it was perfectly legal for the city treasurer to have the property sold at public auction to satisfy the said delinquency. To satisfy such tax delinquency, the government can reach the property regardless of who the owner is at the time of sale. If the owner is not known, the person in whose name the land is declared will suffice. In the instant case, while it is true that Mrs. Rubio was no longer the owner of the land in question at the time the public auction sale was made because the owner then was already Maximo C. Hernandez, the undisputed fact, is that the tax declaration still remained in the name of Mrs. Rubio, and that, as borne out by the records of the City Treasurer's Office, the said property was delinquent in taxes and such delinquencies are liens burdening the said property regardless of who its owner is. The auction sale is therefore binding against whoever the owner of the property was at the time of the said public auction sale. Furthermore, petitioner can not be heard to complain on this ground because as pointed out by the appellee "the purchaser of the land even if it be a registered land has the duty of making a new tax declaration thereof with the advertence that failure to do so shall make the assessment in the name of the previous owner valid and binding on all persons interested, and for all purposes, as though the same had been assessed in the name of the actual owner." (Revised Administrative Code, Section 2484) If the purchaser fails to do this, and the land is sold in accordance with law by the City Treasurer for non-payment of taxes, the courts have no alternative but to uphold the sale made by the City Treasurer even if said purchaser had not been personally notified of such sale (Paguio vs . Rosado de Ruiz, L-5301, May 30, 1953.) WHEREFORE, finding that the judgment of the lower court is supported by law and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed in toto , with costs against appellants. LLcd SO ORDERED. Reyes L. B. and De Castro, JJ . , concur. Footnotes * Vol. 19 C.A.R. (2s), p. ____.