AMPARO JOAQUIN-GUTIERREZ, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. JOSE CAMUS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES. JOSEFA ABAYA-MAPA, INTERVENOR AND APPELLEE.

Amparo Joaquin-Gutierrez and her husband Marciano Gutierrez are
appealing from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio
rendered against them in certiorari proceedings brought by them in that
court to annul a decision of the Director of Lands and affirmed by the
acting Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources regarding the
sale at public auction of Lot No. 100, Residential Section “J” of plan
Swo-24589 of the City of Baguio. According to the appellants the
present appeal is based purely on questions of law. The decision was
based on the pleadings and there being no question or dispute as to the
facts we might just as well reproduce as we do the statement of facts
made by the learned trial court:

“A parcel of land designated as lot No. 100,
Residential Section “J” of plan Swo-24589, containing an area of 1,498
square meters is a public land located within the City of Baguio and
under the control and administration of the Bureau of Lands. One Amparo
Joaquin-Gutierrez is a lessee of this parcel of land, and as such
lessee she is in possession of and built a house on it costing about
P7,000. Later, she Applied with the Director of Lands to buy this land.
Said office approved said application and placed this parcel of land on
sale. But such a sale, according to law, must be done through public
bidding. So the Bureau of Lands advertised to sell said lot at public
auction. In the advertisement, it was expressly stated that the bidder
must deposit with the District Land Office of Baguio 10 per cent of his
bid. Before the sale of said lot on the date fixed in the notice of
sale, applicant Amparo Joaquin-Gutierrez deposited the amount of P900
with the District Land Office of Baguio and bidded P6 a square meter.
The City of Baguio, represented by its duly authorized representatives,
also bidded P7 a square meter. However, instead of depositing in cash
10 per cent of its bid as required in the notice of the District Land
Office of the Bureau of Lands in Baguio, a certification or letter of
City Treasurer Emeterio de los Santos of Baguio certifying to the
effect that there existed at that time in the City Treasury of Baguio
sufficient appropriation to pay whatever the City would bid for the lot
in question, was filed with the District Land Officer of Baguio.
Plaintiff then protested saying that the City of Baguio was not
qualified to bid because it did not deposit in cash 10 per cent of, its
bid. The auctioneer then stopped further proceeding, made no award, and
elevated the protest of petitioner to the Director of Lands. The
Director of Lands held that the City of Baguio was qualified to bid.
Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. The respondent Jose Camus, then Acting Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, rendered his decision upholding the
right of the City of Baguio to put up its bid, stating that the
certificate of the City Treasurer of Baguio to the effect that there
was enough appropriation to buy the lot in question was enough, there
being no need for the City to make the cash deposit. Hence, this case
was filed with this Court.

“Later, in the amended petition,
petitioners added other ground for the disqualification of the City of
Baguio to bid, that is, that, because the purchase price of the lot, by
law, must go to the treasury of the City of Baguio, the land being
within the said City, it is against the law to permit said City to bid
at the auction sale of that lot.

“It is also established in
the pleadings that one Mrs. Josefa Abaya Mapa was owner of lot No. 68
adjoining the ground of the Mansion House in the City of Baguio. This
lot is badly needed by the Government to improve and beautify the
compound of the Mansion House. For that reason, the City, of Baguio
exchanged or bartered lot No. 100, now in question, with lot No. 68 of
Mrs. Josefa Abaya Mapa, an exchange which cannot be consummated without
the acquisition of lot No. 100 by the City of Baguio. Lot No. 68 has
already been taken possession of by the City of Baguio for the purpose
of beautifying and improving the Mansion House compound as stated
above, the contract of barter between the City of Baguio and Mrs.
Josefa Abaya Mapa having been consummated since September 25, 1951. For
this reason, the notice for the sale contains the following pertinent
call of attention to the bidders:

‘ This lot is earmarked for
exchange by the City of Baguio with private lot of Mrs. Josefa Abaya
Mapa which is included in the compound of the Mansion House. The
right is reserved to reject any and all bids. For further particulars,
apply to Bureau of Lands.’

“By reason of the barter as above stated, Mrs. Josefa Abaya Mapa was permitted to join as party-defendant in this case.”

Section 2544 of the Revised Administrative Code, one of the
provisions of the Charter of the City of Baguio, provides that “all
moneys received from the sale of public lands within the city shall
accrue to and be deposited in the treasury thereof.” Appellants concede
the power of the City of Baguio to purchase real property. Section 2541
of the same Code (City Charter) authorizes the City to take, purchase,
receive, hold, lease, convey, and dispose of real and personal
property, for the benefit bf the City within or without its corporate
limits. They, however, contend that since under Section 2544
aforementioned the sales price of lot No. 100 now in litigation would
go to the City of Baguio, so that if the City of Baguio over all other
bidders, succeeded in purchasing the lot, it need not pay out anything,
it follows that in any auction sale of public lands in Baguio, the City
has a distinct, even overwhelming and unfair advantage because it could
outbid any bidder. This contention was rejected by the trial court and
we believe that it acted correctly. It is true that under the law, the
City of Baguio has an advantage over other bidders but that advantage
has its limits. If one or more of the sealed bids are higher than that
of the City, or in the public bidding, private bidders raise the price
so high, and to the point that it means a considerable amount and
income to the City, the latter may find it more advantageous to give
up, and allow the higher bid to stand, the City to receive the amount
of the highest bid. In this particular case, were appellant Amparo’s
sealed bid higher than that of the City of Baguio, then the lot should
have been sold to her. The trouble was that her sealed bid was lower.
Even then, if at the public bidding, she had raised her bid to such a
figure, say P50, or even P100, or more per square meter, the City would
in all probability have given up and allowed her to buy the lot at the
extraordinary price, the City to put said considerable amount in its
coffers, and then try to compensate Mrs. Abaya for her lot 68 in some
other way, or even expropriate it if necessary. We hold that the
advantage given to the City of Baguio by Section 2544 of the Revised
Administrative Code has its limits, and it is neither so unjust nor
grossly unfair so as to disqualify it from bidding at the sale of
public land within the City limits.

Sections 25 and 26 of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141)
provide that in the sale of public land all bids must be accompanied by
cash or certified check, Treasury Warrant, or post-office money order
payable to the order of the Director of Lands, for ten per centum of
the amount of the bid, and that no bid received at such public auction
shall be finally accepted until the bidder shall have deposited ten per
centum of his bid, as required. Appellants contend that the City of
Baguio did not make this deposit and so was not qualified to bid, and
that the certificate issued by the City Treasurer of Baguio as to the
availability of funds for the purchase of the lot was not sufficient
compliance with the law. Again, we have to uphold the ruling of the
trial court against this contention. The deposit in cash or treasury
warrant or post-office money order for the 10 per cent of the bid is
not unlike the bond required of parties for the perfection of an appeal
or for the issuance of a writ of attachment or for the Sheriff to sell
property claimed by a third party. Under section 15 of Rule 39, of the
Rules of Court regarding levy on property claimed by any other person
than the defendant or his agent, the officer is not bound to keep the
property unless the judgment creditor on demand indemnify said officer
against such claim by bond. The section, however, further provides that
when the plaintiff or the person in whose favor the writ of execution
runs, is, the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly
representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required. That is
an example of the exemption accorded to the Government. In the case of
the Government of the P. I. vs. Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, 34 Phil. 157, We held that the Government is not required to
give an appeal bond on taking an appeal from a judgment, the reason
therefor being that there could be no doubt as to the solvency of the
Government. Again, in the case of Tolentino vs. Carlos, 66
Phil. 140, this Court held that when the plaintiff is the Government,
it need not file a bond for the issuance of a writ of attachment on the
premise that the State is solvent. In the present case, we have the
presumption of the solvency of the City of Baguio, a political agency
of the Government. This, aside from the certificate of the City
Treasurer that there were funds available for the purchase of the lot.

In view of the foregoing, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed with costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A,, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.