Talusan v. Tayag

8/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356
VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 263

Talusan vs. Tayag
*
G.R. No. 133698. April 4, 2001.
ANTONIO TALUSAN** and CELIA TALUSAN, petitioners,

vs. HERMINIGILDO TAYAG and JUAN HERNANDEZ,
respondents.
Land Registration; Courts; Jurisdiction; Presidential Decree

No. 1529 has eliminated the distinction between general
jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the latter’s
limited jurisdiction when acting merely as a land registration
court—land registration courts, as such, can now hear and decide
even controversial and contentious cases, as well as those involving
substantial issues.—Indeed, this Court in several cases has
previously declared that a petition for the surrender of the
owner’s dupli-
______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
** Spelled “Hermenigildo” in the Petition.
264
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Talusan vs. Tayag
cate certificate involves contentious questions which should be

threshed out in an ordinary case, because the land registration
court has no jurisdiction to try them. Presidential Decree (PD)
1529, however, intended to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to
promote the expeditious termination of cases. In more recent
cases, therefore, the Court declared that this Decree had
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c16b8e30f20a7ba2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
eliminated the distinction between general jurisdiction vested in

the Regional Trial Court and the latter’s limited jurisdiction when
acting merely as a land registration court. Land registration
courts, as such, can now hear and decide even controversial and
contentious cases, as well as those involving substantial issues.
Same; Same; Same; The Regional Trial Court now has the
authority to act not only on applications for original registration,
but also on all petitions filed after the original registration of title,
and coupled with this authority is the power to hear and determine
all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.—Thus,
petitioners err in contending that the RTC is, in a land
registration case, barred from ruling on the validity of the auction
sale. That court now has the authority to act not only on
applications for original registration, but also on all petitions filed
after the original registration of title. Coupled with this authority
is the power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such
applications or petitions. Especially where the issue of ownership
is ineluctably tied up with the question of registration, the land
registration court commits no error in assuming jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; It is equally important to consider that a
land registration court’s decision ordering the confirmation and
the registration of title, being the result of a proceeding in rem,
binds the whole world.—It is equally important to consider that a
land registration court’s decision ordering the confirmation and
the registration of title, being the result of a proceeding in rem,
binds the whole world. Thus, the trial court’s ruling consolidating
the ownership and the title of the property in the name of herein
respondent is valid and binding not only on petitioners, but also
on everyone else who may have any claim thereon.
Real Estate Taxes; Tax Delinquencies; Public Auctions;
Matters of notice and publication in tax sales are factual questions
that cannot be determined by the Supreme Court.—It has been
held that matters of notice and publication in tax sales are factual
questions that cannot be determined by this Court. Moreover, a
recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as in this case,
generally precludes the determination of factual issues. This
Court will not, as a rule, inquire into the evidence relied upon by
the lower courts to support their findings.
265
VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 265
Talusan vs. Tayag
Same; Same; Same; Actions; 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.—
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.
Same; Same; Same; The notice sent by registered mail to the
registered owner of the condominium unit at his permanent
address adequately protected the rights of the taxpayer.—In the
present case, the notice of delinquency was sent by registered
mail to the permanent address of the registered owner in Manila.
In that notice, the city treasurer of Baguio City directed him to
settle the charges immediately and to protect his interest in the
property. Under the circumstances, we hold that the notice sent
by registered mail adequately protected the rights of the
taxpayer, who was the registered owner of the condominium unit.
Same; Same; Same; For purposes of the real property tax, the
registered owner of the property is deemed the taxpayer.—For
purposes of the real property tax, the registered owner of the
property is deemed the taxpayer. Hence, only the registered owner
is entitled to a notice of tax delinquency and other proceedings
relative to the tax sale. Not being registered owners of the
property, petitioners cannot claim to have been deprived of such
notice. In fact, they were not entitled to it.
Same; Same; Same; The determination of the taxpayer’s
address to which the notice may be sent is the treasurer’s
discretionary prerogative.—The above-cited provision, however,
shows that the determination of the taxpayer’s address to which
the notice may be sent is the treasurer’s discretionary
prerogative. In this case, the city treasurer deemed it best to send
the notice of public auction to the residence of the taxpayer. The
former validly exercised this option, inasmuch as the address of
the latter was known to him. Moreover, it was more practical and
favorable to the registered owner that the notice of delinquency be
sent to his permanent residence in Manila, because he was using
the subject condominium unit merely as a vacation house and not
as a residence.
266
Talusan vs. Tayag
Land Titles; Sales; An unregistered deed of sale of a

condominium unit has no binding effect with respect to third
persons who have no knowledge of it.—To reiterate, for purposes
of the collection of real property taxes, the registered owner of the
property is considered the taxpayer. Although petitioners have
been in possession of the subject premises by virtue of an
unregistered deed of sale, such transactions has no binding effect
with respect to third persons who have no knowledge of it.
Same; Same; Double Sales; Between two purchasers, the one
who has registered the sale in one’s favor has a preferred right over
the other whose title has not been registered, even if the latter is in
actual possession of the subject property.—As correctly pointed out
by respondents, equitable considerations will not find application,
if the statutes or rules of procedure explicitly provide for the
requisites and standards by which the matters at bench can be
resolved. While it may be assumed that both petitioners and
Respondent Tayag are innocent purchasers of the subject
property, it is a well-settled principle that between two
purchasers, the one who has registered the sale in one’s favor has
a preferred right over the other whose title has not been
registered, even if the latter is in actual possession of the subject
property.
Actions; Laches; The law helps the vigilant, but not those who
sleep on their rights, for time is a means of obliterating actions.—
Indeed, petitioners’ suit is now barred by laches. The law helps
the vigilant, but not those who sleep on their rights, for time is a
means of obliterating actions. Verily, time runs against the
slothful and the contemners of their own rights.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court

Gancayco, Balasbas & Associates for petitioners.
Rondez, Rondez and Gandeza Law Offices for private
respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
For purposes of real property taxation, the registered

owner of a property is deemed the taxpayer and, hence, the
only one entitled to a notice of tax delinquency and the
resultant proceedings reia-
267
VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 267

Talusan vs. Tayag
tive to an auction sale. Petitioners, who allegedly acquired

the property through an unregistered deed of sale, are not
entitled to such notice, because they are not the registered
owners. Moral lessons: real property buyers must register
their purchases as soon as possible and, equally important,
they must pay their taxes on time.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule

45 of the1 Rules of Court, assailing the November 20, 1997
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No.
41586. The dispositive portion of the challenged Decision is
hereunder reproduced as follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision

(dated February 4, 1993) of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 7) in
Baguio City in Civil Case No. 1456-R is hereby AFFIRMED, with
costs against plaintiffs/appellants.” 2
Also assailed is the April 27, 1998 CA Resolution which denied
petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. 3
The questioned CA ruling affirmed the Decision of Branch 7 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City in Civil Case No.
1456-R. The RTC, in turn, dismissed an action for the annulment
of the auction sale of a condominium unit, covered by
Condominium Certificate of Title No. 651 and located in Building
IV, Europa Condominium Villas, Baguio City.
The Facts
The CA
4
summarized the antecedents of this case in this
wise:
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 47-59; penned by Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr. with the
concurrence of Justices Emeterio C. Cui (Division Chairman) and Hilarion
L. Aquino (member).
2 Rollo, p. 76.
3 Rollo, pp. 77-93; written by Judge Clarence J. Villanueva.
4 CA Decision, pp. 1-3; rollo, pp. 47-49.
268

Talusan vs. Tayag
“On June 28, 1988, [herein petitioners] filed a complaint wherein

they alleged, inter alia, that:
—They bought the subject property covered by Condominium

Certificate of Title No. 651, from its former owner, Elias Imperial, as
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale:
—On October 15, 1985, ‘[herein Respondent] Juan D. Hernandez, x x x
sued x x x in his capacity as City Treasurer of Baguio City, wrote a
letter to the former owner Elias Imperial informing him that the above
described property would be sold at public auction on December 9,
1985, x x x to satisfy the delinquent real estate taxes, penalties and
cost of sale, and demanded payment of the sum of P4,039.80,
representing total taxes due and penalties thereon;
—‘Elias Imperial and his entire family emigrated to Australia in 1974.’
Elias Imperial never authorized ‘a certain Dante Origan x x x to
receive any letter or mail matter for and on his behalf;
—[Respondent] Hernandez sold the above-described property to
[Respondent] Tayag for P4,400.00 without any notice to the former
owner thereof, [or] to [petitioners], and without compliance with the
provisions of PD No. 464, as evidenced by the Certificate of Sale’;
—A final bill of sale was later issued ‘in favor of the [Respondent]
Hermenegildo Tayag.’ The assessed value alone of the said property is
P37,310.00 and the fair market value of the same is more than
P300,000.00 and both [respondents] knew these;
—The bid price of P4,400 ‘is so unconscionably low and shocking to the
conscience,’ thus, the sale ‘for the alleged unpaid taxes in the sum of
P4, 039.79, including penalties’ is ‘null and void ab initio’;
—‘[Petitioners] have been in actual possession of the Unit in question,
since they bought the same from its former owners, and their
possession is open, public, continuous, adverse and in the concept of
owners, while [Respondent] Hermegildo Tayag has never been in
possession of the said property’;
—[Petitioners] through intermediaries offered ‘to pay to the
[respondents] the sum of P4,400 plus all interests and expenses which
[they] might have incurred x x x but said offer was rejected without
any just [or] lawful cause.’
There is a need to issue a writ of preliminary injunction to

‘preserve the status quo.’
They asked for: moral damages of not less than P50,000.00;
exemplary damages of not less than P20,000.00; attorney’s fee of
P30,000.00, plus appearance fee of P2,000.00 for every
appearance; and litigation
269
VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 269

Talusan vs. Tayag
expenses of not less than P5,000.00 to prosecute the case, (pages

3-8 of the Record)
On July 14, 1988, [Respondent] Hermenegildo Tayag filed his

[A]nswer with [C]ounterclaim (pages 28-32 of the Record),
wherein he substantially denied the allegations in the complaint
and, at the same time, raised the following affirmative defenses,
among others:
—‘(T)he ownership of the Condominium unit registered under

Condominium Certificate of Title No. 651, Baguio City, has been
consolidated in his name by virtue of the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Baguio, Branch 6, on September 16, 1987 x x x.
The said decision has [become] final and executory as evidenced
by the Certificate of Finality issued on October 8, 1987’;
—[Petitioners have] no cause of action against him, he being a
‘buyer in good faith in a regular and lawful public bidding in
which any person is qualified to participate.’
—The lower court has no jurisdiction over [petitioners’] claim
‘because the [petitioners] pray for the annulment of the
Certificate of the Sale and the Final Bill of Sale, which was
affirmed by virtue of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Baguio, Branch 6, on September 16, 1987 x x x. The said decision
has [become] final and executory as evidenced by the Certificate
of Finality issued on October 8, 1987’;
—The public auction sale complied with ‘the requirements of
Presidential Decree No. 464’—hence, the same is ‘lawful and
valid’;
—‘[Respondent] Tayag is not bound by the alleged [D]eed of [S]ale
in favor of the [petitioners] by Elias [I]mperial, because it was not
registered and recorded with the Registry of Deeds of Baguio
City.’
[Respondent] Tayag then prayed for the award in his favor, of:
moral damages of at least P50,000.00; exemplary damages;
attorney’s fees in the sum of P10,000.00; and, expenses of
litigation.
[Respondent] Hernandez likewise filed an [A]nswer on July 18,
1988, wherein he denied the material averments in the complaint
and stated that ‘no irregularity or illegality was committed in the
conduct of the proceedings with respect to the delinquent real
property of Elias Imperial and the actuations of the defendant
herein were all within the limits of his authority and in
accordance with the provisions of the law pertaining to delinquent
real property, particularly, P.D. 464 otherwise known as the Real
Property Tax Code and therefore, no damages may be imputed
against him.’ He also claimed, by way of affirmative defenses,
that:
270

Talusan, vs. Tayag
—The complaint states no cause of action against the

[respondent] herein:
—‘[Petitioners] have not complied with x x x Section 83 of P.D.
No. 464 x x x thus, the case cannot prosper’;
—‘Granting that a Deed of Sale was actually issued in favor of
the plaintiffs [because of] the fact that it is unregistered, the
same does not bind third persons including defendant herein.’ ”
In their Complaint, petitioners alleged that on December 7,

1981, they had acquired the condominium from Elias
Imperial, the original registered owner, for P100,000. The
sale was purportedly evidenced by a Deed of Sale which,
however, had not and thenceforth never been registered
with the Register of Deeds.
Petitioners also averred that on December 9, 1985,
Baguio City Treasurer Juan Hernandez sold the property
at a public auction due to nonpayment of delinquent real
estate taxes thereon. The property was sold to Respondent
Herminigildo Tayag for P4,400 which represented the
unpaid taxes.
Thus, petitioners filed a Complaint seeking the
annulment of the auction sale. They cited irregularities in
the proceedings and noncompliance with statutory
requirements.
Dismissing the Complaint, Branch 7 of the RTC of
Baguio City cited the December 16, 1987 judgment of
Branch 6 of the same court in LRC Adm. Case No. 207-R.
This earlier Branch 6 Decision had consolidated ownership
of the condominium unit in favor of Respondent Tayag. The
Branch 7 Decision also cited the May 31, 1988 Order of
Branch 5 of the same court which had granted a Petition
for the Cancellation of Condominium Certificate of Title
No. 651 in the name of Elias Imperial and directed the
Register of Deeds to issue a new Certificate of Title in the
name of Respondent Tayag. According to the trial court,
the Decision in LRC Adm. Case No. 207-R had already
upheld the legality of the questioned auction sale. Hence, to
rule again on the same issue would amount to passing
upon a judgment made by a coequal court, contrary to the
principle of “conclusiveness of judgment.”
271
VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 271

Talusan vs. Tayag
Ruling of the CA
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and

ratioci-nation. The CA explained that LRC Adm. Case No.
207-R had already ruled on the validity of the auction sale
of the subject condominium unit. It further sustained the
validity of that sale, because the city treasurer complied
with the requirements of notice, publication and posting. It
added that “[i]f [petitioners] never received the notices sent
to Elias Imperial, then they have only themselves to blame
for failing to register the deed of sale between them and the
former owner x x x.”
Rejecting petitioners’ contention that the purchase price
was inadequate, the CA ruled that such inadequacy could
not nullify the auction sale. It likewise held that petitioners
had not established bad faith on the part of respondents in
conducting the auction sale. Finally, it agreed with the
latter’s contention that the former were “remiss in causing
the registration of the sale in their favor of the subject
property and they likewise did not fulfill their obligation to
pay taxes. It [is] thus clear x x x they should only have
themselves to blame. Laws exist to be followed, failing in
which the price must be5 paid.”
Hence, this recourse.
The Issues
Petitioners assigned the following

6
alleged errors for the
consideration of this Court:
_______________
5 The case was deemed submitted for resolution on September 30, 1999,
upon receipt by this Court of Respondent Tayag’s Memorandum signed by
Atty. Renato S. Rondez of Rondez, Rondez and Gandeza Law Offices.
Received earlier were petitioners’ Memorandum (September 7, 1999) and
Reply Memorandum (September 30, 1999) signed by Attys. Emilio A.
Gancayco and C. Fortunato R. Balasbas of Gancayco. Balasbas &
Associates.
6 Petition, pp. 4-5; rollo, pp. 11-12; See also Petitioners’ Memorandum,
pp. 3-4.
272

Talusan vs. Tayag
“I. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The Honorable Court of Appeals grievously erred in failing to

consider that the petitioners were deprived of their right to due
process in this case due to the gross and inexcusable negligence of
their former counsel who failed to inform them of the decision in
this case and protect their interest.
“II. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

nullify the auction sale of the subject property of petitioners due
to alleged tax delinquency when there was no compliance with the
mandatory requirement of Section 46 of P.D. 464 that such notice
of delinquency of the payment of the property tax should be
published.
“III. THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

consider the lack of personal notice of the sale for public auction of
the subject property to its owner which nullifies the said
proceeding.
“IV. FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The Honorable Court of Appeals grievously erred in holding

that the decision of the trial court in the petition for the
consolidation of the title case filed by the private respondent in
LRC Admin. Case 207 is a bar to this proceeding.
“V. FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not nullifying the

auction sale of subject property on equitable considerations.”
We deem it appropriate to simplify the issues in this wise:

(1) whether the RTC Decision in LRC Adm. Case No. 207-R
is a bar to this proceeding; and (2) whether the auction sale
of the subject condominium unit should be annulled on the
grounds of (a) non-publication of the notice of delinquency
for the payment of property tax, (b) lack of personal notice
of the sale or public auction of the subject property and (c)
equitable considerations. As a preliminary matter, we shall
also consider petitioners’ submission that they were
deprived of due process because of their counsel’s failure to
inform them immediately of the receipt of the CA Decision.
273
VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 273

Talusan vs. Tayag
Preliminary Matter:
Negligence of Petitioners’ Former Counsel
Petitioners aver that their former counsel informed them of

the CA Decision only on February 5, 1998, more than two
months after he had received a copy on December 3, 1997.
According to petitioners, their former counsel’s negligence
effectively deprived them of their right to due process.
We disagree. Notwithstanding its late filing, their
Motion for Reconsideration was accepted and considered by
the CA. Hence, this issue has become moot, a fact which
petitioners themselves admitted in their Memorandum: “As
a matter of fact, in the very resolution of the Court of
Appeals of April 27, 1998 (Annex ‘C’ to Petition) denying
the motion for reconsideration, wherein the matter of
inexcusable negligence of counsel in not informing
petitioners immediately of the decision of the court a quo,
were among the grounds thereof, it was held that the
issues raised therein had already been considered in the
Decision of November 20, 1997. The Court of Appeals
obviously considered that the Motion for Reconsideration
was validly filed by petitioners so that the Court of Appeals
favorably considered the plea of petitioners to be afforded
due process by acting on the Motion for Reconsideration.
Otherwise, it could have just denied said Motion 7
for late
filing or simply noted the same without action.”
Moreover, petitioners
8
themselves declared in their Reply
Memorandum that this matter is no longer in issue: “At
any rate this issue was raised in the Motion for
Reconsideration of the Decision of the appellate court and
obviously it was favorably considered as the said Court
denied the merit of said Motion by stating that the issues
raised have already been treated in the Decision, instead of
outrightly denying the same for late9
filing. Hence, this is no
longer in issue in this proceeding.”
________________
7 Petitioners’ Memorandum, pp. 9-10; rollo, pp. 129-130.

8 Rollo, pp. 145-150.
9 Reply Memorandum, p. 2; rollo, p. 146.
274

Talusan vs. Tayag
First Issue:
Bar by Earlier Judgment
Petitioners contend that the Decision in LRC Adm. Case

No. 207-R, rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio
City (Branch 6), did not preclude the filing of a separate
action to annul the auction 10
sale. Citing Tiongco v.
Philippine Veterans Bank, they aver that this RTC
Branch had no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of that
sale. Hence, its Decision in the LRC case cannot bar the
present proceedings.
Petitioners’ reliance on Tiongco is misplaced,
considering that its factual incidents are different from
those of the present controversy. In that case, the trial
court was acting on a Petition for the Surrender of
Certificates of Title. In LRC Adm. Case No. 207-R, the trial
court was faced with a Petition for Consolidation of
Ownership. It had jurisdiction to rule on all matters
necessary for the determination of the issue of ownership,
including the validity of the auction sale. 11
Indeed, this Court in several cases has previously
declared that a petition for the surrender of the owner’s
duplicate certificate involves contentious questions which
should be threshed out in an ordinary case, because the
land registration court has no jurisdiction to try them.
Presidential Decree (PD) 1529, however, intended to
avoid a multiplicity of suits and to promote 12the expeditious
termination of cases. In more recent cases, therefore, the
Court declared that this Decree had eliminated the
distinction between general jurisdiction vested in the
Regional Trial Court and the latter’s limited jurisdiction
when acting merely as a land registration court. Land
_______________
10 212 SCRA 176, August 5, 1992.

11 See Puguid v. Reyes, 20 SCRA 972, August 10, 1967; Tomada vs.
Tomada, 28 SCRA 1028, July 30, 1969; Santos v. Cruz, 52 SCRA 330,
August 30, 1973.
12 Estate of the Late Mercedes Jacob v. CA, 283 SCRA 474, December
22, 1997; Ignacio v. CA, 246 SCRA 242, July 14, 1995; Quiroz v. Muñoz,
210 SCRA 60, June 18, 1992; Philippine National Bank v. International
Corporate Bank, 199 SCRA 508, July 23, 1991.
275
VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 275

Talusan vs. Tayag
registration courts, as such, can now hear and decide even

controversial and contentious 13
cases, as well as those
involving substantial issues.
Thus, petitioners err in contending that the RTC is, in a
land registration case, barred from ruling on the validity of
the auction sale. That court now has the authority to act
not only on applications for original registration, but also
on all petitions filed after the original registration of title.
Coupled with this authority is the power to hear and
determine14 all questions arising upon such applications or
petitions. Especially where the issue of ownership is
ineluctably tied up with the question of registration, the
land registration
15
court commits no error in assuming
jurisdiction.
It is equally important to consider that a land
registration court’s decision ordering the confirmation and
the registration of title, being
16
the result of a proceeding in
rem, binds the whole world. Thus, the trial court’s ruling
consolidating the ownership and the title of the property in
the name of herein respondent is valid and binding not only
on petitioners, but also on everyone else who may have any
claim thereon.
Second Issue:
Validity of the Auction sale
Petitioners contend that the auction sale was invalid,

because several requisites regarding notice and publication
were not satisfied. We are not convinced.
It has been held that matters of notice and publication in
tax sales are
17
factual questions that cannot be determined by
this Court. Moreover, a recourse under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, as in this case, generally precludes the
determination of factual issues. This Court will not, as a
rule, inquire into the evidence
_______________
13 Ignacio v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 242, July 14, 1995.

14 Ligon v. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 693, June 1, 1995.
15 Vda. de Arceo v. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 489, May 18, 1990.
16 Meneses v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 162, July 14, 1995.
17 De Knecht v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 223, May 20, 1998.
276

Talusan vs. Tayag
18
relied upon by the lower courts to support their findings.
In this case, the CA had already ruled on the question of
compliance with the requirements of notice and publication
in this wise:
“In the case at bench, it cannot be denied that the requirements of

notice, publication and posting have been complied with by the
public defendant prior to the auction sale wherein the subject
condominium unit was sold, x x x Ergo, there was nothing
irregular in the questioned public auction—thus, the validity of
the same19
must be upheld in accordance with the aforementioned
cases.”
The CA ruling notwithstanding, we shall proceed to discuss

these factual issues in order to assure petitioners of a
complete adjudication of their case, and not a mere
disposition of procedural technicalities.
The Non-Publication of Notice

of Real Property Tax Delinquency
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 20
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.
_______________
18 Banaag v. Bartolome, 204 SCRA 924, December 20, 1991; Ching Sui
Yong v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 191 SCRA 187, November 6, 1990.
19 CA Decision, p. 10; rollo, p. 56.
20 Peña, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1988 ed., p. 373.
277
VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 277

Talusan vs. Tayag
In the present case, the notice of delinquency was sent by

registered mail to the permanent address of the registered
owner in Manila. In that notice, the city treasurer of
Baguio City directed him to settle the charges immediately
and to protect his interest in the property. Under the
circumstances, we hold that the notice sent by registered
mail adequately protected the rights of the taxpayer, who
was the registered owner of the condominium unit.
For purposes of the real property tax, the registered
owner of the property is deemed the taxpayer. Hence, only
the registered owner is entitled to a notice of tax
delinquency and other proceedings relative to the tax sale.
Not being registered owners of the property, petitioners
cannot claim to have been deprived of such notice. In fact,
they were not entitled to it.
Lack of Personal Notice of the Sale

or of the Public Auction of the Subject Property
Petitioners also contend that the registered owner was not
given personal notice of the public auction. They cite
Section 73 of PD 464, the pertinent portion of which is
reproduced hereunder:
“x x x. Copy of the notices shall forthwith be sent either by

registered mail or by messenger, or through messenger, or through
the barrio captain, to the delinquent taxpayer, at the address
shown in the tax rolls or property tax records of the municipality
or city where the property is located, or at his residence, if known
to said treasurer or barrio captain, x x x.” (Italics supplied by
petitioners in their Memorandum)
According to petitioners, the notice of public auction should

have been sent to the address appearing in the tax roll or
property records of the City of Baguio. That address is Unit
No. 5, Baden #4105, Europa Condominium Villas, Baguio
City; not the known address or residence of the registered
owner at 145 Ermin Garcia Street, Cubao, Quezon City.
They contend that notice may be sent to the residence of
the taxpayer, only when the tax roll does not show any
address of the property.
The above-cited provision, however, shows that the
determination of the taxpayer’s address to which the notice
may be sent is the treasurer’s discretionary prerogative. In
this case, the city
278

Talusan vs. Tayag
treasurer deemed it best to send the notice of public

auction to the residence of the taxpayer. The former validly
exercised this option, inasmuch as the address of the latter
was known to him. Moreover, it was more practical and
favorable to the registered owner that the notice of
delinquency be sent to his permanent residence in Manila,
because he was using the subject condominium unit merely
as a vacation house and not as a residence. 21
This Court in Pecson v. Court of Appeals made a clear
and categorical ruling on the matter, when it declared as
follows:
“Under the said provisions of law, notices of the sale of the 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.” (emphasis
supplied)
To reiterate, for purposes of the collection of real property

taxes, the registered owner of the property is considered
the taxpayer. Although petitioners have been in possession
of the subject premises by virtue of an unregistered deed of
sale, such transaction has no binding effect with respect to
third persons who have no knowledge of it.
The importance of registration and its binding effect is
stated in Section 51 of the Property Registration Decree or
PD 1529, which reads:
“Sec. 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner.—An

owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or
otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws.
He may use such forms, deeds, mortgages, leases or other
voluntary instrument as are sufficient in law. But no deed,
mortgage, lease or other voluntary instrument, except a will
purporting to convey or effect registered land, shall take effect as a
conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract
between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Registry of
Deeds to make registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or

affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned, and
in all cases
________________
21 222 SCRA 580, 584, May 25, 1993, per Quiason, J.
279
VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 279

Talusan vs. Tayag
under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the

Office of the Register of Deeds for the province or the city
where the land lies.”
Thus, insofar as third persons are concerned, it is the
registration of the deed of sale that can 22validly transfer or
convey a person’s interest in a property. In the absence of
registration, the registered owner whose name appears on
the certificate of title is deemed the taxpayer to whom the
notice of auction sale should be sent. Petitioners, therefore,
cannot claim to be taxpayers. For this reason, the
annulment of the auction sale may not be invoked
successfully.
The Annulment of the Auction Sale

on Equitable Considerations
As correctly pointed out by respondents, equitable
considerations will not find application, if the statutes or
rules of procedure explicitly provide for the requisites and
standards by which the matters at bench can be resolved.
While it may be assumed that both petitioners and
Respondent Tayag are innocent purchasers of the subject
property, it is a well-settled principle that between two
purchasers, the one who has registered the sale in one’s
favor has a preferred right over the other whose title has
not been registered, even if the 23
latter is in actual
possession of the subject property.
Likewise, we cannot help but point out the fact that
petitioners brought this misfortune upon themselves. They
neither registered the Deed of Sale after its execution nor
moved for the consolidation of ownership of title to the
property in their name. Worse, they failed to pay the real
property taxes due. Although they had been in possession
of the property since 1981, they did not take the necessary
steps to protect and legitimize their interest.
_______________
22 Vda. de Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 457, January 29,

1996.
23 Tañedo vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 80, January 22, 1996.
280

Talusan vs. Tayag
24
Indeed, petitioners’ suit is now barred by laches. The law
helps the vigilant, but not those who sleep on their rights,
for time is a means of obliterating actions. Verily, time
runs against
25
the slothful and the contemners of their own
rights.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the
assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes and

Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—Where the province buys the delinquent

properties sold in a public auction to satisfy unpaid real
estate taxes and penalties, the municipalities entitled to
taxes on said properties may be considered co-owners of
such properties to the extent of their respective shares in
the real property taxes and the penalties thereon.
(Salalima vs. Guingona, Jr., 257 SCRA 55 [1996])
In ascertaining the identity of the delinquent taxpayer,
for purposes of notifying him of his tax delinquency and the
prospect of a distraint and auction of his delinquent
property, the City or Provincial Treasurer should not
simply rely on the tax declaration—he should verify from
the Office of the Register of Deeds as to who the registered
owner is to determine the real delinquent taxpayer. One
who is no longer the owner of the property cannot be
considered the delinquent taxpayer. (Estate of the Late
Mercedes Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 474 [1997])
——o0o——
________________
24 See Garbin v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 187, February 5, 1996.

25 Salandanan v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 671, June 5, 1998.
281
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Talusan v. Tayag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Talusan v. Tayag

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Talusan v. Tayag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 356

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 263

ANTONIO TALUSAN** and CELIA TALUSAN, petitioners,

Land Registration; Courts; Jurisdiction; Presidential Decree

** Spelled “Hermenigildo” in the Petition.

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Talusan vs. Tayag

cate certificate involves contentious questions which should be

eliminated the distinction between general jurisdiction vested in

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 265

Talusan vs. Tayag

Same; Same; Same; Actions; Unlike land registration

land for the collection of delinquent taxes are in personam, thus

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Talusan vs. Tayag

Land Titles; Sales; An unregistered deed of sale of a

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court

For purposes of real property taxation, the registered

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 267

tive to an auction sale. Petitioners, who allegedly acquired

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“On June 28, 1988, [herein petitioners] filed a complaint wherein

—They bought the subject property covered by Condominium

There is a need to issue a writ of preliminary injunction to

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 269

expenses of not less than P5,000.00 to prosecute the case, (pages

On July 14, 1988, [Respondent] Hermenegildo Tayag filed his

—‘(T)he ownership of the Condominium unit registered under

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

—The complaint states no cause of action against the

In their Complaint, petitioners alleged that on December 7,

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 271

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and

Petitioners assigned the following

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“I. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The Honorable Court of Appeals grievously erred in failing to

“II. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The Honorable Court of Appeals grievously erred in failing to

“III. THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The Honorable Court of Appeals grievously erred in failing to

“IV. FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The Honorable Court of Appeals grievously erred in holding

“V. FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not nullifying the

We deem it appropriate to simplify the issues in this wise:

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 273

Petitioners aver that their former counsel informed them of

7 Petitioners’ Memorandum, pp. 9-10; rollo, pp. 129-130.

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Petitioners contend that the Decision in LRC Adm. Case

10 212 SCRA 176, August 5, 1992.

VOL. 356, APRIL 4, 2001 275

Talusan vs. Tayag

registration courts, as such, can now hear and decide even

Petitioners contend that the auction sale was invalid,