SECOND DIVISION
EFREN
AQUINO and
ANGELICA
AQUINO,
Petitioners,
-
versus -
its OIC, BRIGIDO SIMON,
ANSELMO O. REGIS, VICENTE
N. COLOYAN, as the Acting
Register of Deeds of
and AIDA LINAO, accompanied by
her husband PETE LINAO,
Respondents.
x --------------------------------------------- x
SOLOMON TORRADO, represented
herein by his heirs, namely: VICTOR
SILVANO TORRADO, MONALISA
TORRADO CARLET, CELIA G.R.
No. 138624
TORRADO APTER, ROBERTO
SILVANO TORRADO, SOLOMON Present:
SILVANO TORRADO, TITA
SILVANO TORRADO, HILARIO PUNO, J., Chairperson,
SILVANO TORRADO, EMMANUEL SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
SILVANO TORRADO, and
AUGUSTUS CAESAR SILVANO AZCUNA, and
TORRADO, GARCIA, JJ.
Petitioners,
-
versus - Promulgated:
VERONICA BALUYOT and
RUPERTO BALUYOT,
CORAZON and MAXIMO UY,
DNX DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON
CITY, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
AZCUNA,
J.:
In an order issued by this Court
dated
G.R. No. 137534
The first
case, docketed as G.R. No. 137534, deals with a 612-square meter lot in East
Avenue Subdivision, Diliman,
Petitioners Aquino
claimed that they learned of the sale only in April 1987 after they were
informed by people “squatting” on the property that Aida Linao
was taking steps to eject them. They then filed an action for annulment of
title, reconveyance and damages against respondents
On
In this petition, Petitioners Aquino raise two issues:
1.
Whether there was
failure on the part of the Quezon City local
government to satisfy the notice requirements before selling the property for tax
delinquency; and
2.
Whether there was
failure on the part of the
3.
Whether or not Petitioners
Aquino were estopped to
question the absence of notice given their admission that they deliberately did
not pay their taxes.
G.R. No.
138624
The second case, docketed as G.R. No.
138624, deals with a 407-square meter property located at
On
Meanwhile, on
Before this Court, Petitioner Heirs
raise the following questions:
1.
In the auction
sale of tax delinquent property, is constructive notice sufficient?
2.
Was the City
Treasurer negligent in continuing to send notices to an “insufficient address”
notwithstanding a tax declaration in the tax records pertaining to another
property bearing Solomon Torrado’s complete address?
3.
Was the auction
sale conducted in accordance with P.D. 464?
4.
Was the title of
Veronica Baluyot, the purchaser of the property, void
as well as those of the subsequent transferees?
5.
Is DNX
Corporation, the subsequent purchaser of the property, a buyer in good faith?
Issues common to both petitions
The Court will first discuss the
issues that were raised in common by petitioners.
The first issue in common relates to the
interpretation of the notice requirements under Sections 65 and 73 of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 464 (the Real Property Tax Code then in force):[9]
x x x
SECTION
65. Notice of delinquency in the
payment of the real property tax. — Upon the real property tax or any
installment thereof becoming delinquent, the provincial or city treasurer shall
immediately cause notice of the fact to be posted at the main entrance of the
provincial building and of all municipal buildings or municipal or city hall
and in a public and conspicuous place in each barrio of the municipality of the
province or city as the case may be. The notice of delinquency shall also be
published once a week for three consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province or city, if any there be, and announced by a crier
at the market place for at least three market days.
Such
notice shall specify the date upon which tax became delinquent, and shall state
that personal property may be seized to effect payment. It shall also state
that, at any time, before the seizure of personal property, payment may be made
with penalty in accordance with the next following section, and further, that
unless the tax and penalties be paid before the expiration of the year for
which the tax is due, or the tax shall have been judicially set aside, the
entire delinquent real property will be sold at public auction, and that
thereafter the full title to the property will be and remain with the
purchaser, subject only to the right of delinquent taxpayer or any other person
in his behalf to redeem the sold property within one year from the date of
sale.
x x x
SECTION
73. Advertisement of sale of real property
at public auction. — After the expiration of the year for which the tax is
due, the provincial or city treasurer shall advertise the sale at public
auction of the entire delinquent real property, except real property mentioned
in subsection (a) of Section forty hereof, to satisfy all the taxes and
penalties due and the costs of sale. Such advertisement shall be made by
posting a notice for three consecutive weeks at the main entrance of the
provincial building and of all municipal buildings in the province, or at the
main entrance of the city or municipal hall in the case of cities, and in a
public and conspicuous place in the barrio or district wherein the property is
situated, in English, Spanish and the local dialect commonly used, and by
announcement at least three market days at the market by crier, and, in the
discretion of the provincial or city treasurer, by publication once a week for
three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the
province or city.
The
notice, publication, and announcement by crier shall state the amount of the
taxes, penalties and costs of sale; the date, hour, and place of sale, the name
of the taxpayer against whom the tax was assessed; and
the kind or nature of property and, if land, its approximate areas, lot number,
and location stating the street and block number, district or barrio,
municipality and the province or city where the property to be sold is
situated. Copy of the notice shall forthwith be sent either by registered mail
or by messenger, or through the barrio captain, to the delinquent taxpayer, at
his address as shown in the tax rolls or property tax record cards of the
municipality or city where the property is located, or at his residence, if
known to said treasurer or barrio captain: Provided, however, That a return of
the proof of service under oath shall be filed by the person making the service
with the provincial or city treasurer concerned.
Both petitioners construe the
above-quoted provisions to mean that two sets of notices, one under Section 65
and the other under Section 73, are required before a delinquent property could
be sold for failure to pay real property taxes. With respect to the first
notice under Section 65, the owner of the real property subject to tax is supposed
to be given a Notice of Tax Delinquency stating that if the property tax is not
paid, the local government would sell the real property to satisfy the tax in
arrears. This consists of four separate measures: 1) posting of the notice of
tax delinquency at the main entrance of the city hall; 2) posting of the notice
of tax delinquency in a public and conspicuous place in each barangay of the city; 3) publication of the notice of tax
delinquency once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the city; and 4) verbal announcement of the existence of the
notice of tax delinquency by a crier at the market place for at least three
market days.
The second notice under Section 73
pertains to a Notice of Sale at Public Auction notifying the owner of the real
property that since there was failure to heed the first notice, the local
government would now be selling his delinquent property at public auction on a
specified date to satisfy the tax in arrears.
For Petitioners Aquino,
while it seems the
Petitioner Heirs, on the other hand,
push for the same construction and claim that there was failure on the part of
the City Treasurer to send Solomon Torrado a Notice
of Delinquency at all.
Respondents, on the other hand,
counter with their own interpretation of P.D. No. 464. Instead of a two-step
notice requirement, respondents put forward the view that there are three
methods of enforcement on tax delinquent real property provided under P.D. No.
464. The first method is by distraint of personal
property under Sections 65, 68, 70, 71 and 72. The second method is by sale of
the delinquent real property itself under Sections 73 to 81. The third method
is by filing a case in court under Section 82. Respondents submit that the real
property in issue was sold under the second method. That being the case, while
they admit that there was only partial compliance with the provisions of Section
65[11] this
would be relevant had the local government chosen the method of distraint of personal property. In this case, the
A simple application of the
elementary rules of statutory construction provides a straightforward
resolution to this conflict. Section 65 basically provides that upon
delinquency of a real property tax, a notice of delinquency shall be given.
This is followed by Section 66, penalty for delinquency, and Section 67,
application of the remedies. The latter reads in its entirety as follows:
SECTION 67. Remedies cumulative, simultaneous and
unconditional. — Collection of the real property tax may be enforced
through any or all of the remedies provided under this Code, and the use or
non-use of one remedy shall not be a bar against the institution of the others.
Formal demand for the payment of the delinquent taxes and penalties due need
not be made before any of such remedies may be resorted to; notice of
delinquency as required in Section sixty-five hereof shall be sufficient for
the purpose.
Following Section 67 are provisions
on distraint of personal property (Sections 68, 69, 70,
71 and 72), provisions concerning the sale of real property (Sections 73 to 81)
and the provision on collection of real property tax through the courts
(Section 82).
A rule of statutory construction is
that a statute must be construed as a whole. The meaning of the law is not to
be extracted from a single part, portion or section or from isolated words and
phrases, clauses or sentences, but from a general consideration or view of the
act as a whole. Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to
the context.[12] In line
with this rule, the Court finds that Section 65’s notice of delinquency should
be read in line with the Section 67’s statement that the different tax remedies
do not require a formal demand for the payment but may be substituted by the notice
of delinquency. Reference to the notice of delinquency in relation to tax
remedies, in general, illustrates the former’s
function as a prerequisite to all the individual tax remedies subsequently
detailed. Also, the phrase “notice of delinquency as required in Section
sixty-five” found on the last part of Section 67 further underscores its
mandatory nature and interrelation to the three remedies.
It is incorrect for the respondents
to claim that notice of delinquency has limited application only to distraint of personal property. They mistakenly lumped
Section 65 exclusively with Sections 68 to 72 and, in so doing, restricted its
application from the other tax remedies. Section 65 is to be construed together
with Sections 66 and 78 and all three operate in reference to tax methods in
general. Definitely, there is no more logical way to construe the whole chapter
on “Collection of Real Property Tax” (Sections 56 to 85) than to stress that
while three methods are provided to enforce collection on real property taxes,
a notice of delinquency is a requirement regardless of the method or methods
chosen.
Thus, while the Court agrees with the
respondents’ interpretation that there are three methods by which taxes may be
enforced, petitioners are correct in insisting that two notices must be sent to
the taxpayer concerned. Nevertheless,
respondents still prevail because the Court is satisfied that the two-notice
requirement has been complied with by the Treasurer’s Office.
Contrary to the stand taken by
Petitioners Aquino, despite the provisions of Section
65, the local government concerned need not post and publish the notice of
delinquency, it being sufficient that personal service was done. In Talusan v. Tayag,[13]
one of the issues raised was the lack of publication of the notice of
delinquency. As to this issue the Court said, speaking through now Chief
Justice Panganiban:
Petitioners
assert that the tax sale should be annulled because of noncompliance with the
requirement of publication prescribed in Section 65 of PD 464.
In
this regard, we note that unlike land registration proceedings which are in rem, cases involving an auction sale of land for the
collection of delinquent taxes are in personam.
Thus, notice by publication, though sufficient in proceedings in rem, does not as a rule satisfy the requirement of
proceedings in personam. As such, mere
publication of the notice of delinquency would not suffice, considering that
the procedure in tax sales is in personam. It
was, therefore, still incumbent upon the city treasurer to send the notice of
tax delinquency directly to the taxpayer in order to protect the interests of
the latter.
In
the present case, the notice of delinquency was sent by registered mail to the
permanent address of the registered owner in
Petitioners Aquino
admit that notice of delinquency was mailed, hence, they cannot complain that
their rights were not adequately protected. Publication and posting not being indispensable,
there was proper compliance with Section 65.
Petitioner Heirs, on the other hand,
made no such admission but, on the contrary, argued that no notice of
delinquency was prepared by the City Treasurer much less sent to Solomon Torrado. The Court holds, for one, that this is a question
of fact that will generally not be resolved on a petition for review.[14] Second,
records bear out that a Notice of Intent to Sell dated
Hence, on the common issue concerning
compliance with P.D. No. 464, the Court rules in favor of respondents.
The Court proceeds to the common issue
of actual versus constructive notice of sale.
Petitioners Aquino
argue that actual notice is required and, therefore, the mailing of the Notice
of Sale to their last known address, which they had abandoned, did not
constitute valid notice under the law. Petitioner Heirs likewise argue that
constructive notice to the delinquent owner of the real property by mailing is
not sufficient, especially when the local government concerned is aware that
the mailed notices have not reached the owner.
The applicable provision in regard to
this issue is found in the last paragraph of Section 73, quoted above. Under
said provision, notices of the sale at public auction may be sent to the
delinquent taxpayer, either (i) at the address as
shown in the tax rolls or property tax record cards of the municipality or city
where the property is located or (ii) at his residence, if known to such
treasurer or barrio captain. Plainly, Section 73 gives the treasurer the option
of where to send the notice of sale. In giving the treasurer the option,
nowhere in the wordings is there an indication of a requirement that notice
must actually be received by the intended recipient. Compliance by the
treasurer is limited to strictly following the provisions of the statute: he
may send it at the address of the delinquent taxpayer as shown in the tax rolls
or tax records or to the residence if known by him or the barrio captain.
In both petitions, the City Treasurer
opted to comply with the first option. Petitioners Aquino
and Petitioner Heirs do not deny that notices were sent to their or their
predecessor’s address, as shown in the tax records. The named persons in
the notices sent by City Treasurer were the correct delinquent taxpayers and were
the registered owners of the property subject to tax, albeit the mailing addresses
were not to their actual residences. Therefore, the prescribed procedure in
auction sales of property for tax delinquency was followed punctiliously. Had
the City Treasurer sent the notices to an address other than the one indicated
in the tax records, and such address is not the residence known to the
treasurer or barangay captain, or if sent to a person
who is not the registered owner of the property, then the Court would be able
to declare non-compliance with the law. But the fact that petitioners were not
able to read their notices is of no consequence to the annulment of the auction
sale.
Additionally, Petitioner Heirs maintain that the
Treasurer’s Office was already aware that Solomon Torrado’s
address stated in the tax records as “
The fault herein lies with Solomon Torrado and not with the City Treasurer. Solomon Torrado’s use in his tax declarations for
In contrast, the Treasurer’s Office
cannot be faulted for not sending the notices to Solomon Torrado’s
address at
barrio captain actually knew that Solomon Torrado’s
residence was
In disposing of these two issues,
there is no further need to discuss the issues of estoppel
and good faith.
WHEREFORE, both petitions are DENIED
and the decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 37487 and 49241
are AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Associate Justice
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] LRC Case No. 3160 (85).
[2] Married
to Pete Linao.
[3] Accompanied
by her husband, Pete Linao.
[4] Civil
Case No. Q-51130.
[5] Solomon
Torrado is now deceased and is represented in this
petition by his heirs, petitioners in G.R. No. 138624.
[6] Taken
from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 37487.
[7] In
addition to the mailing, the notices of sale were posted, published in a
newspaper of general circulation and announced by criers in the marketplace.
Likewise, the Barangay Captain of the barangay where the property was located was informed of the
auction sale.
[8] Civil
Case No. Q-89-1563.
[9] Now
Sections 197 to 283 of the Local Government Code of 1991.
[10] Petitioners’
Memorandum, Rollo, p. 205.
[11] Respondent’s
Memorandum in G.R. No. 137534, Rollo, p. 240.
[12] Aisporna v. Court of Appeals, No. L-39419,
[13] G.R.
No. 133698,
[14]
[15] G.R.
No. 138624, Rollo, p. 18.