G.R. No. L-11058; June 30, 1959
JULIAN M. MANANSALA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LUCAS BARON, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land with improvements at Nos. 601 & 603 Isabel (Corner F. Jocson Streets), Sampaloc, Manila. The property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 63708 in the name of Marcelina David, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants (appellees). A prior litigation (Civil Case No. 948) between plaintiff Julian M. Manansala (appellant) and Marcelina David established the defendants’ ownership. The Court of First Instance absolved the defendants and ordered the plaintiff to vacate and pay rent, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
During the pendency of that prior case, real estate taxes for 1945-1948 were unpaid. The property was advertised for sale at public auction on April 2, 1948. There were no bidders, and the property was declared forfeited to the City of Manila. The plaintiff, as the declared owner in the tax rolls, was notified on September 14, 1948, and had one year to redeem. On April 2, 1949, the plaintiff entered into a compromise agreement with the City Treasurer to pay the delinquent taxes. After extensions, he completed payments on May 4, 1950. The City Treasurer then issued a “Certificate of Repurchase” in the plaintiff’s favor.
The plaintiff filed the present complaint, alleging he became the absolute legal owner of the property by virtue of the Certificate of Repurchase, arguing the defendants’ failure to redeem within the statutory period rendered the forfeiture absolute.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff (Julian M. Manansala) acquired absolute ownership over the property by virtue of the “Certificate of Repurchase” issued by the City Treasurer after he redeemed the property from tax forfeiture.

RULING

No. The plaintiff did not acquire ownership. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, with modification.
The Court held that the “Certificate of Repurchase” (Exhibit A) was not the tax deed contemplated under Section 71 of Republic Act No. 409 (Revised Charter of Manila). That deed is issued to a third-party purchaser at a public auction after the owner fails to redeem. Here, there was no sale to a third party; the property was forfeited to the City due to lack of bidders, and the plaintiff, as the declared taxpayer, redeemed it within the one-year period allowed by Section 73 of the same Act.
The plaintiff’s redemption merely prevented the loss of the property. It did not nullify the final judgment in the prior case (Civil Case No. 948), which definitively established the defendants (heirs of Marcelina David) as the true owners. The plaintiff’s theory would improperly allow a tax redemption to override a final adjudication of ownership.
Furthermore, Section 77 of Republic Act No. 409 , which requires an owner assailing a tax sale to pay into court the sale price plus interest, applies when property is sold to a third party or forfeited to the city and the owner seeks to recover it. It does not apply here, where the property was redeemed by another person who then claims ownership against the true owner.
However, since the plaintiff’s redemption preserved the property for the benefit of the true owners (the defendants), he is entitled to be reimbursed by the defendants for the amounts he paid to the City Treasurer for the redemption, with lawful interest from the date of payment. The judgment was affirmed with this modification.