G.R. No. L-5773. May 10, 1954

This is a petition for certiorari by way of appeal to review a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The parties submitted to the trial court the following agreed statement of facts:

“1. That the property described in paragraph 1 of
the complaint is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 41201,
City of Manila, registered in the name of Cirila Ortega, Filipina, of
lawful age, single;

“2. That the said Cirila Ortega died
intestate in the City of Manila on May 13, 1945, without intestate
proceedings having been instituted in court up to the present time;

“3.
That the said property was delinquent in the payment of real estate
taxes due to the City of Manila for the second semester of the year
1946 and for the years 1946 and 1947;

“4. That, due to the
said delinquent in the payment of real estate taxes, the said property
was sold at public auction by the City Treasurer of Manila on December
29, 1947, according to the records of that office;

“5. That
the defendant bought in the said auction a portion of the property in
question consisting of 94 square meters, according to the records of
the City Treasurer of Manila;

“6. That, on September 29,
1949, the City Treasurer of Manila executed a ‘Deed of Sale’ of the
said portion of 94 square meters of the property in question in favor
of the defendant, which was duly registered in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of the City of Manila on October 14, 1949, under
Primary Entry No. 542/T-17, and duly annotated on the Original Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 41201;

“7. That, according to Mr.
Rosendo O. Subido, a member of the Manila Realty Board, the price of
land in the locality of the property in question in the year 1947 was
F15 per square meter and is still the same price;

“8. That,
on August 29, 1948, the City Treasurer of Manila addressed a letter to
Cirila Ortega at 422 M. Ocampo Street, Manila, and on October 9, 1948
another letter was addressed to Cirila Ortega at No. 422 Quezon
Boulevard, Manila, advising her of the sale of the property in question
at public auction due to the delinquency in the payment of taxes and
reminding her to repurchase the same before the expiration of one year
from the date of the sale, but both letters were returned to the City
Treasurer by the Manila Post Office with the notation ‘Return to
Sender’;

“9. That Martin Ocampo street has been eliminated and absorbed by the Quezon Boulevard some fifteen (15) years ago;

“10.
That, on October 13, 1949, the plaintiffs deposited with the Clerk of
Court the sum of P12.06, as per official receipt No. 2338130, to cover
the delinquent taxes including interests thereon.

“WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the foregoing be admitted as part of the evidence in the present action”.

It appears that the procedure followed by the City Treasurer in
selling the property at public auction was perfectly regular and in
accordance with law. The death of the predecessor-in-interest of the
plaintiffs did not affect such procedure, as her heirs could have taken
care of the property. A similar case has been decided by this Court in
Valbuena, et al. vs. Aurelio Torres, et al.,^[*]
47 Off. Gaz., p. 1209, in March, 1951, in which it was held that the
death of the real estate owner, who, for that reason, could not
personally receive the notice of delinquency and of the sale at public
auction did not affect the validity of the proceedings for the reason
that his heirs or successors-in-interest could act in his stead.

The point urged by the appellant is that the land was sold for the
unconsciounably low price of P10.19 for ninety-four square meters. With
regard to this point, Justice Dionisio de Leon, with the concurrence of
Justices Roberto Conception and Arsenio P. Dizon, of the Court of
Appeals, says:

“* * * Considering that the lot is only 210 square
meters, the price of P10.19 for 94 square meters thereof ceases to be
unconsciounable, as it is hard to believe that a much smaller portion
could have been sold at the same amount.

“Moreover, the
plaintiffs have no one to blame but themselves for the loss of a
portion of the property in question. As aptly observed by the trial
court, they have shown themselves to have been careless, negligent and
guilty of laches in not doing what their predecessor, Cirila Ortega,
could and should have done had she been living. Plaintiff Pedro
Casimiro was more than 50 years old when Cirila Ortega died in 1945.
According to the court below, this witness was not lacking in
education, judging from his appearance and manner of testifying before
the said court. While this plaintiff testified that he never lived
with, or interfered in the affairs of, his alleged mother, Cirila
Ortega, he admitted, however, that his sisters, his co-plaintiffs,
lived with Cirila Ortega since they were born and until the death of
their alleged mother. During all those years, it is hard to believe
that Pedro’s sister’s who, according to the court below, also appeared
to be advanced in years, were ignorant of the business affairs and
worldly possessions of their alleged mother. Another proof of their
carelessness and negligence is the circumstance that, as divulged in
their reply, dated October 14, 1949, to defendant-appellee’s amended
answer, it would tend to show that all the papers of the deceased
Cirila Ortega, including the owner’s duplicate of transfer certificate
of title No. 41201 and realty tax receipts for said property in the
name of the deceased, were all the time in the custody of the
plaintiffs”.

We find no error of law in the decision of the Court of Appeals, nor any other justifiable reason for reversing or modifying it.

In view of the foregoing the petition is denied, without costs. It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.

---

^[*] 84 Phil., 676