G.R. No. L-3655 and L-3656, April 28, 1951.
Miguel M. Ramos and Aurora V. Argosino, petitioners, vs. Valentina Villaverde, et al., respondents. (L-3655)

Miguel M. Ramos and Aurora V. Argosino, petitioners, vs. Paula Florido, et al., respondents. (L-3656)

FACTS

Prior to March 1939, Perfecto Reyes and Valentina Villaverde were the registered owners of Lot No. 1904, and Juan Jorque was the registered owner of Lot No. 3439, both of the Lopez (Quezon) cadastre. These lots were forfeited for delinquency in tax payment and sold at public auction to Agapito Vergara (Lot No. 1904 for P10 and Lot No. 3439 for P100). Vergara subsequently conveyed both lots to the spouses Miguel M. Ramos and Aurora V. Argosino for P3,000 each. In 1947, the spouses filed petitions in the cadastral case alleging the loss of the owners’ duplicate certificates of title and praying for the issuance of new ones in their favor. The petitions were granted over the objections of the registered owners. The legality of the tax sales is challenged on the grounds, among others, that the sales were not advertised in a newspaper, and no notice was sent to the owners by registered mail.

ISSUE

Whether the tax sales of the lots in March 1939 were valid, considering the alleged non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirements under the applicable law.

RULING

The tax sales are invalid. The applicable law at the time of the sales in March 1939 was Section 41 of Act No. 3995 , not Section 35 of Commonwealth Act No. 470 . Section 41 of Act No. 3995 required that the announcement of the sale at public auction be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the province, if any, and that a copy of the notice be sent by registered mail to the delinquent taxpayer at his residence if known. It is conceded that no notices were sent by registered mail to the delinquent taxpayers. The Court held that notice by registered mail under Act No. 3995 was mandatory and excluded any other mode of service. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the subsequent law, Commonwealth Act No. 470 , explicitly added sending notice by messenger as an alternate means, which would have been superfluous if it were already allowed under the prior law. Furthermore, as the sale of property for tax delinquency is in derogation of property rights and due process, the prescribed steps must be followed strictly. The decision of the Court of Appeals, which found the sales invalid, is affirmed.