G.R. No. L-3656 - APRIL 1951 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-3656April 28, 1951 Miguel M. Ramos, et al. vs. Paula Florido, et al. G.R. No. L-3655April 28, 1951 Miguel M. Ramos, et al. vs. Valentina Villaverde, et al. G.R. No. L-3642April 28, 1951 Carlos Zabaljauregui vs. Potenciano Pecson, et al. G.R. No. L-3435April 28, 1951 Clara Tambunting de Legarda, et al. vs. Victoria Desbarats Miailhe G.R. No. L-3405April 28, 1951 Intestate Estate of Charles A. McDonough. Peoples Bank and Trust Co. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. G.R. No. L-2025April 28, 1951 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Ricardo Parulan, et al. G.R. No. L-4269April 27, 1951 Enrique Tan vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-3937April 27, 1951 Go Tecson, et al. vs. Higino Macadaeg, et al. G.R. No. L-3879April 27, 1951 Montserrat D. Aquino vs. Philippine Army Amnesty Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-3823April 27, 1951 Topandas Verhomal, et al. vs. Condrado V. Sanchez, et al. G.R. No. L-3723April 27, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Angel Gutierrez , et al. G.R. No. L-3626April 27, 1951 Francisco M. Pajao vs. Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte, et al. G.R. No. L-3366April 27, 1951 Emerita Valdez, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan, et al. G.R. No. L-3238April 27, 1951 in re: Lucia Luz Reyes. Getulio Reyes vs. Maria Aguilera vda. Luz, et al. G.R. No. L-3225April 27, 1951 J. Antonio Araneta vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Bangking Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-2957April 27, 1951 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Ambrosio Delgado G.R. No. L-2913April 27, 1951 Philippine Refining Company, Inc. vs. Cesar Ledesma G.R. No. L-2901April 27, 1951 in re: Pedro P. Santos. Guadalupe Dozon vda. de Santos vs. Rosa M. Santos vda. de Ricafort, et al. G.R. No. L-2844April 27, 1951 Luy-A Allied Workers' Association vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-2500April 27, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Quevedo G.R. No. L-2378April 27, 1951 Jose Ma. Ansaldo vs. Fidelity and Surety Company of the Philippine Islands G.R. No. L-1922April 27, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Teodorico Matias G.R. No. L-2877April 26, 1951 Malate Taxicab & Garage Co. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-3468April 25, 1951 Gregoria Aranzanso vs. Gregorio Martinez G.R. No. L-2807April 23, 1951 Miguel Amando A. Siojo vs. Ruperta Tecson, et al. G.R. No. L-3761April 20, 1951 Manolita Gonzales de Carungcong vs. Juan Conjuangco, et al. G.R. No. L-3731April 20, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Domingo de Deguia, et al. G.R. No. L-3565April 20, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Nang Kay G.R. No. L-3507April 20, 1951 Maximo Reyes vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-3469April 20, 1951 Bernardo P. Timbol vs. John Martin, et al. G.R. No. L-3269April 20, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Honorio Magbanua G.R. No. L-3330April 20, 1951 Philippine Mines Syndicate vs. Guirey, et al. G.R. No. L-2971April 20, 1951 Feliciano C. Maniego vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-4209April 18, 1951 Edward C. Garron, et al. vs. Francisco Arca, et al. G.R. No. L-3487April 18, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Santa Rosa G.R. No. L-3396April 18, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Iglicerio Muñoz, et al. G.R. No. L-3342April 18, 1951 In Testate Estate of Lee Liong. Rafael A. Dinglasan, et als. vs. Ang Chia, et al. G.R. No. L-3072April 18, 1951 Flaviana Garcia, et al. vs. Francisco Valera G.R. No. L-2174April 18, 1951 People of the Philippines vs. Crecensio Raganit, et al. G.R. No. L-4036April 13, 1951 Chester R. Clarke vs. Philippine Ready Mix Concrete Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-3414April 13, 1951 Geronimo Deato, et al. vs. Rural Progress Administration G.R. No. L-3364April 11, 1951 Fortunato F. Halili vs. Antonio A. Balane G.R. No. L-3304April 5, 1951 Antonio C. Torres vs. Eduardo Quintos G.R. No. L-3404April 2, 1951 Angela I. Tuason vs. Antonio Tuason, Jr., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Miguel M. Ramos, et al. vs. Paula Florido, et al. Miguel M. Ramos, et al. vs. Valentina Villaverde, et al. Carlos Zabaljauregui vs. Potenciano Pecson, et al. Clara Tambunting de Legarda, et al. vs. Victoria Desbarats Miailhe Intestate Estate of Charles A. McDonough. Peoples Bank and Trust Co. vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Ricardo Parulan, et al. Enrique Tan vs. People of the Philippines Go Tecson, et al. vs. Higino Macadaeg, et al. Montserrat D. Aquino vs. Philippine Army Amnesty Commission, et al. Topandas Verhomal, et al. vs. Condrado V. Sanchez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Angel Gutierrez , et al. Francisco M. Pajao vs. Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte, et al. Emerita Valdez, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan, et al. in re: Lucia Luz Reyes. Getulio Reyes vs. Maria Aguilera vda. Luz, et al. J. Antonio Araneta vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Bangking Corp., et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Ambrosio Delgado Philippine Refining Company, Inc. vs. Cesar Ledesma in re: Pedro P. Santos. Guadalupe Dozon vda. de Santos vs. Rosa M. Santos vda. de Ricafort, et al. Luy-A Allied Workers' Association vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jose Quevedo Jose Ma. Ansaldo vs. Fidelity and Surety Company of the Philippine Islands People of the Philippines vs. Teodorico Matias Malate Taxicab & Garage Co. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. Gregoria Aranzanso vs. Gregorio Martinez Miguel Amando A. Siojo vs. Ruperta Tecson, et al. Manolita Gonzales de Carungcong vs. Juan Conjuangco, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Domingo de Deguia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Nang Kay Maximo Reyes vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, et al. Bernardo P. Timbol vs. John Martin, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Honorio Magbanua Philippine Mines Syndicate vs. Guirey, et al. Feliciano C. Maniego vs. People of the Philippines Edward C. Garron, et al. vs. Francisco Arca, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Santa Rosa People of the Philippines vs. Iglicerio Muñoz, et al. In Testate Estate of Lee Liong. Rafael A. Dinglasan, et als. vs. Ang Chia, et al. Flaviana Garcia, et al. vs. Francisco Valera People of the Philippines vs. Crecensio Raganit, et al. Chester R. Clarke vs. Philippine Ready Mix Concrete Co., Inc., et al. Geronimo Deato, et al. vs. Rural Progress Administration Fortunato F. Halili vs. Antonio A. Balane Antonio C. Torres vs. Eduardo Quintos Angela I. Tuason vs. Antonio Tuason, Jr., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3655 April 28, 1951
MIGUEL M. RAMOS AND AURORA V. ARGOSINO,petitioners,
vs.
VALENTINA VILLAVERDE, ET AL.,respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-3656 April 28, 1951.
MIGUEL M. RAMOS AND AURORA V. ARGOSINO,petitioners,
vs.
PAULA FLORIDO, ET AL.,respondents.
Alfredo Bonus and Lorenzo S. Navarro for petitioners.
Zosimo D. Tanalega for respondents.
TUASON,J.:
This appeal bycertiorarifrom a decision of the Court of Appeals involves the validity of the sales of two parcels of land for payment of taxes.
Briefly, the facts are these: Prior to March, 1939, Perfecto Reyes and Valentina Villaverde were the registered owners of lot No. 1904 and Juan Jorque of lot No. 3439, both of Lopez (Quezon) cadastre. Having been forfeited for delinquency in the payment of taxes, these lots were sold at public auction to Agapito Vergara, the first for P10 and the last for P100. Vergara subsequently conveyed both lots for P3,000 each to the spouses Miguel M. Ramos and Aurora V. Argosino.
In 1947, these spouses filed petitions in the above-mentioned cadastral case alleging that the owner's duplicate certificates of title covering the two parcels had been lost and praying that new ones be issued in lieu thereof in their favor. After a joint hearing, both petitions were granted in an order which is now the subject of appeal, over the objections of the registered owners.
The legality of the sales is impugned on the grounds, among others not essential to the case, that said sales were not advertised in a newspaper nor was notice thereof sent to the owners by registered mail.
As found by the Court of Appeals, the law in force at the time of the sales in question, March, 1939, was not Commonwealth Act No. 470, Section 35, as erroneously supposed by the parties and the court a quo, but Section 41 of Act No. 3995. The latter Act remained in operation until December 31, 1939, according to the express provision of Section 33 of Commonwealth Act No. 470.
Section 41,supra, provided, among other things, that announcement of sale of confiscated real property at public auction "shall be made by publishing a notice once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the province, if there be any," and further that "a copy of the notice shall be forthwith sent byregistered mailto the deliquent taxpayer at his residence if known to said treasurer." These requirements were varied by Commonwealth Act No. 470, which makes publication of notice in a newspaper discretionary with the provincial treasurer and authorizes the treasurer, also in his discretion, to send such notice to the owner either by registered mail or by messenger.
By "newspaper of general circulation published in the province" was meant, in our opinion, one printed and not merely circulated herein. The purchasers of the lots in question admit that no publication of the notice in a newspaper was accomplished. However, they assert that there was no newspaper published or printed in Quezon Province, and now they ask for a new trial, explaining that their failure to adduce proof on this core in the court below arose from the erroneous belief on their part as well on the part of the Court of First Instance, that in March, 1939, when the sales are effected, the procedure outlined in Section 35 of Commonwealth Act No. 470 already governed, Act which, as has been seen, makes announcement of the sale in a newspaper optional with the provincial treasurer.
The view we take of the second ground of objection, to be presently stated, makes it unnecessary to decide the first, or to grant a new hearing.
It is conceded that no notices by registered mail were sent to the deliquent taxpayers. What the purchasers understood to prove was that notices were transmitted by messengers. The Court of Appeals made no definite findings on whether personal notices were dispatched, as claimed, or received by the sendees. The only evidence on the subject was furnished by the municipal treasurer and not by the messengers themselves. Needless to say, the treasurer was not in a position to and did not affirm positively that the messengers actually handed the notices to the parties for whom they were intended, or left them at their places of residence.
However the case may be, we are in agreement with the Court of Appeals that notice by registered mail, as ordained by Act No. 3995, was mandatory and excluded any other mode of service. Had this not been the case, it would have been superflous for the Legislature to add in the subsequent law — Commonwealth Act No. 470 — the sending of notice by messenger as an alternate means of notification. Furthermore, we think there is much to the contention that as, the sale of property for tax deliquency is in derogation of property rights and due process, the prescribed steps must be followed strictly.
We are constrained to affirm, as we hereby affirm, the decision of the Court of Appeals, without special findings as to cost of this appeal.
Paras, C.J., Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ.,concur.