G.R. No. L-9061; November 18, 1957
RICARDO VELAYO, petitioner-appellant, vs. FERNANDO ORDOVEZA, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On October 29, 1949, the City Treasurer of Manila sold at public auction, for unpaid real estate taxes for 1948 and 1949 totaling P185.95, a property described as “LAND containing an area of 99.40 SQUARE METERS, more or less, with improvements thereon, located at 813 Lepanto, Sampaloc, Manila, and designated as lot 16, Block 35, Assessment No. 3305.” The purchaser was Ricardo Velayo. The property at that address was owned by the Ordovezas and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 79178, which described it as two distinct cadastral lots (Lot No. 20, Block No. 4002, containing 94.80 sq.m., and Lot No. 21, Block No. 4002, containing 2.30 sq.m.). On November 20, 1949, Fernando Ordoveza learned of the sale and wrote to Velayo offering reimbursement plus 15% interest. Velayo did not reply and instead obtained a certificate of sale from the City Treasurer on December 4, 1950. On December 11, 1950, Ordoveza wrote to the City Treasurer attempting to redeem the property by tendering payment, but was informed the redemption period had expired on October 29, 1950. Velayo registered the certificate of sale on December 15, 1950. The City Treasurer executed a final deed of sale to Velayo on November 12, 1951. On November 10, 1954, Velayo filed a petition in the cadastral court to register the deed and have a new certificate of title issued in his name. The Ordovezas opposed, arguing, among other grounds, that the officer charged by law with conducting tax sales was the City Assessor and Collector, not the City Treasurer. The Court of First Instance denied Velayo’s petition based on this ground.

ISSUE

Whether the tax sale conducted by the City Treasurer of Manila, instead of the City Assessor and Collector as mandated by Republic Act No. 409 (the Charter of Manila), is valid.

RULING

No. The tax sale is invalid. Republic Act No. 409 explicitly designates the “city assessor and collector” as the officer charged with the duties of advertising real estate for sale for tax delinquency, conducting the sale, issuing the certificate of sale, and executing the final deed. The provisions of the law (Sections 65, 69, 70, 71, and 72) are clear, explicit, and unequivocal in conferring these functions upon the city assessor and collector. The sale in this case was conducted by the City Treasurer, an officer not authorized by the statute for that purpose. Therefore, the proceedings were void. The order of the lower court denying Velayo’s petition is affirmed. The Register of Deeds is directed to cancel the memorandum of sale on TCT No. 79178, without prejudice to Velayo’s right to recover the amount he paid.