JOSE T. VELASQUEZ, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE HON. PEDRO K. CORONEL, ETC., RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

On August 3, 1953, the Acting Provincial Treasurer of Rizal advertised for
sale at public auction two parcels of land situated in Las Piñas, Rizal to pay
cercain real property taxes due for 1949 to 1953 from Eduardo Guico and Narciso
Mayuga, respectively. The land belonging to Guico contains an area of 383,099
sq. m. and has an assessed value of P4,730.00 while that of Mayuga contains an
area of 245,329 sq. m. and has an assessed value of P7,500.00. The land tax due
from Mayuga, including penalty and costs, amounted to P470.19, and that due from
Guico amounted to P261.58.

On August 24, 1953, Jose T. Velasquez offered the sum of P520.19 for the
property of Mayuga and the sum of P311.58 for the property of Guico, which bids
were duly accepted and for which the deputy provincial treasurer issued in his
favor the corresponding certificates of sale on August 25, 1953.

On September 17, 1954, Velasquez sent a letter to the provincial treasurer
requesting him that he execute in his favor the final deed of sale covering the
properties purchased by him it appearing that their owners failed to redeem the
same within the period of one year, but the latter in his reply stated that he
could not accede to the request because the prices he paid for the lands were
unconscionable in view of an opinion rendered by the Secretary of Justice in a
similar case. In the same letter, Velasquez was advised that the amount he had
paid for the properties, plus 20% interest thereon, would be refunded to him if
he would return the original of the official receipt issued to him for the
payment of said amount. Whereupon, Velasquez complained to the Secretary of
Finance against the treasurer’s refusal to issue the final deed of sale in his
favor, but said Secretary wrote Velasquez telling him that he was sustaining the
action taken by the treasurer.

As a consequence, Velasquez filed a petition for man, damus before the Court
of First Instance of Rizal praying that the Provincial Treasurer of Rizal be
ordered to execute in his favor the final deed of sale covering the parcels of
land he had purchased belonging to Narciso Mayuga and Eduardo Guico.

The case having been submitted on the pleadings and on the stipulation of
facts agreed upon by the parties, the court a quo rendered decision
granting the petition. It ordered respondent, after the decision had become
final, to execute in favor of petitioner the necessary final deed of sale as
requested in the petition.

The case is now before us in view of the appeal taken by respondent as
certified to us by the Court of Appeals.

There is no dispute that the parcels of land in question were advertised for
sale at public auction in view of the delinquency on the part of their owners in
the payment of land taxes corresponding to several years, and that on the date
of the sale they were sold to petitioner as the highest bidder for the sums of
P520.19 and P311.58 whose bid was duly accepted by respondent and for which the
corresponding certificates of sale were issued in his favor. The evidence shows
that all the steps leading to the sale at public auction of said parcels of land
as required by law had been complied with. As a matter of fact, respondent
treasurer did not put in issue the legality of any step taken leading to the
sale and refused to execute the final deed of sale simply because the
prices paid for the lands were unconscionable. There is also no question that
the period of one year within which the lands may be redeemed by their owners
had already expired and that neither of them has made any attempt to effect
their redemption.

The question that now arises is: Can respondent treasurer refuse to execute
the final deed of sale on the ground that the prices paid for the lands were
unconscionable even if their owners have not interferred nor raised any issue
with regard to their validity?

Our answer is in the negative it appearing that all the steps leading to the
sale at public auction of the properties in question had been complied with and
the period of one year from the date of the original sale had already expired
without the delinquent taxpayers having effected their redemption. In such
eventuality it is the duty of the provincial treasurer to execute in favor of
the purchase an instrument sufficient in form to convey title to the lands free
from any encumbrance whatsoever. Thus, under Section 40 of Commonwealth Act No.
470, known as the Assessment Law, “In case the delinquent taxpayer does not
repurchase the property sold as herein provided within the period of one year
from the date of the sale, the provincial treasurer shall make an instrument
sufficient in form and effect to convey to the purchaser the property purchased
by him, * * * free from any encumbrance whatsoever.”

It is true that respondent treasurer now claims that the prices for which the
lands were sold are unconscionable considering the wide divergence between their
assessed values and the amounts for which they had been actually sold. However,
while in ordinary sales for reasons of equity a transaction may be invalidated
on the ground of inadequacy of price, or when such inadequacy shocks one’s
conscience as to justify the courts to interfere, such does not follow when the
law gives to the owner the right to redeem, as when a sale is made at public
auction, upon the theory that the lesser the price the easier it is for the
owner to effect the redemption. And so it was aptly said: “When there is the
right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not be material, because the
judgment debtor may reacquire the property or else sell his right to redeem and
thus recover the loss he claims to have suffered by reason of the price obtained
at the auction sale.”^[1] (Italics
supplied)

The contention that the procedure set by law in the sale at public auction of
delinquent real property was not followed because the whole property was sold
and not only so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy the taxes and
penalties due, cannot also be sustained it appearing that what was actually
followed is precisely what the law prescribes on the matter. Thus, the court
a quo found that the official who conducted the sale at first offered to
sell only a portion, then he offered to sell 1/2, and later 3/4, and finally
when nobody offered to buy or submit any bid, he offered to sell the property as
a whole. This is what was alleged in the petition, and although no evidence was
actually submitted to substantiate it, the same was not however denied by
respondent and as such it is deemed admitted. Respondent is, therefore, now
estopped from assailing the validity of the sale based on that procedural
ground.

It appearing that under Section 40 of Commonwealth Act No. 470 in case a
delinquent taxpayer does not repurchase the property sold within a period of one
year from the date of sale it becomes a mandatory duty of the provincial
treasurer to issue in favor of the purchaser a final deed of sale, the court a
quo acted properly in granting the relief prayed for contrary to the claim of
respondent.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as
to costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes,
Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

---

[1] Tolentino vs. Agcaoili, et al., G. R. Nos.
L-4349-51, May 28, 1952; See also Barrozo vs. Macaraeg, et al., 83 Phil.,
379.