AMANDA TRIGAL, MANUEL T. PAZ, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. SABINA TOBIAS, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE TRUSTEESHIP OF AURELIO REYES AND MARIANO V. TAJONERA, DEFENDANTS AND…

On December 21, 1948, the plaintiffs herein Amanda Trigal and
others, heirs of one Fermin Paz, instituted the case at bar before the
CFI of Manila, against the defendants Sabina Tobias, as administratrix
of the trusteeship of Aurelio Reyes and Mariano V. Tajonera, seeking
the annulment of the sale at public auction of two parcels of land,
covered by T. C. T. No. 23783, made to Aurelio Reyes for tax
delinquency and also the subsequent transfer of said properties to the
defendant Mariano V. Tajonera.

Defendants, on March 5, 1949, presented a motion to dismiss the complaint on two grounds, viz:
The action is barred by a prior judgment (Order of Judge Pastor M.
Endencia, dated Feb. 27, 1943, G.L.R.O. Cad. Record No. 307, Aurelio
Reyes, petitioner; Fermin Paz, respondent) and lack of jurisdiction,
because the plaintiffs have not complied with the legal provisions in
connection with suits contesting the validity of tax sales of real
property. Attached to the motion was the above-mentioned Order of Feb.
27, 1943, which reads:

“There being no opposition registered to the sworn
petition filed by Atty. Sancho Inocencio in representation of the
herein petitioner, and it appearing that the respondent, the registered
owner appearing in transfer certificate of Title No. 23783, was duly
notified by publication of the hearing thereof as evidenced by the
affidavit of publication executed by Mr. Taro Hirano, managing Director
of the newspaper THE TALIBA, edited in the City of Manila and of
general circulation, filed in the records;

On petition of
Dr. Aurelio Reyes, purchaser at public auction of the property
described in the transfer certificate of the title in question in order
that his right thereto may be properly inscribed in the office of the
Register of Deeds of Manila, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23783,
issued in the name of Fermin Paz, is hereby cancelled and declared null
and void, and the Register of Deeds of Manila is ordered and directed
to issue, after collecting the fees prescribed by law, a new one in
lieu thereof in the name of Aurelio Reyes, married to Sabina Tobias,
Filipino and residing at 211 Fraternidad, Pandacan, Manila.”

On March 12, 1949, defendant Sabina Tobias filed her Answer and
after the usual admissions and denials, she stated in substance and
elaborated on the same grounds appearing in the Motion to Dismiss.
Repeated moves were made by plaintiffs for the setting of the case for
hearing (June 20, 1950, January 16, 1952, November 19, 1954 and Sept.
8, 1958). The case could not be heard however, because the record
thereof was allegedly lost and/or mislaid.

On September 12, 1958, defendant, thru another counsel, filed a second motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res adjudicata,
but the lower court on April 15, 1959, entered an Order deferring
resolution on the said Motion until after the trial on the merits,
stating that the ground relied upon was not indubitable.

A motion for a reconsideration of the above ruling was presented by
defendants on May 5, 1959, stressing upon lack of jurisdiction of the
lower court to take cognizance of the case and prescription of action.
The motion was opposed by plaintiffs’ counsel, claiming that since
defendant Sabina Tobias had already filed her Answer, she had waived
the right to present any Motion to Dismiss. On May 23, 1959, defendant
Tobias presented a Memorandum in support of her Motion for
reconsideration and a certificate of the Register of Deeds of Manila,
of the following tenor:

At the instance of Atty. Sancho Inocencio, I,
Lorenzo C. Gella, Register of Deeds for the City of Manila, do hereby
certify that on the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23783,
Reg. Book T—54, issued in the names of Fermin Paz married to Amanda
Trigal, there appear among other the following annotations, to wit:

By order of the Court (PE, 5170/T66353) issued on Feb. 27, 1943, this
title is hereby cancelled and declared null and void, and pursuant to
the deed of sale (PE. 5171/T—65353) executed by the City Treasurer on
Jan. 16, 1943, it is directed to issue as it is hereby issued, Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 65353, Book T—220, in the name of Aurelio
Reyes.”

After perusal of plaintiffs’ manifestation and motion dated May 25, 1959, the court a quo on May 27, 1959 promulgated the following order:

“This is a motion for reconsideration filed by the
defendants to set aside the order of this Court dated April 15, 1959
deferring the ruling of the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by
said defendants.

From the facts pleaded in the pleadings of
the parties it appears clearly that the facts in this case and the
questions raised in connection therewith are substantially the same
with those of Catalina de la Cruz vs. Marciana Guevara et al., CA—G. R. No. 5798, promulgated on May 13, 1957, ‘Valbuena et al. vs. Reyes, et al.’ No. 48177, 44 O.G. March 1951, p. 1209, ‘Lourdes Paguia vs.
Maria Rosado de Ruiz’, G.R. No. L—5301, in which the Court of Appeals
and the Supreme Court have rendered rulings adverse to the present
position of the plaintiffs and from which it is clear the disputed
order of February 27, 1943, in G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 307 is res judicata.

Wherefore, the Court sets aside its order of April 15, 1959, and orders
the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, without pronouncement as to
costs.”

This is an appeal from the above order.

The only error which plaintiffs-appellants have raised in their
brief is that the lower court erred in holding that the order of the
Registration Court dated Feb. 27, 1943, in G.L.R.O. Cad. Rec. No. 307,
is res adjudicata to the present action. On the other hand,
defendants-appellees have also alleged as additional grounds for their
motion to dismiss the prescription of action and failure of
plaintiffs-appellants to comply with the requirements of Sec. 77 of
R.A. No. 1837 and, therefore, the lower court had not acquired
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

We are of the belief that the validity of the sale at public
auction had not been put in issue, when the court promulgated the order
of February 27, 1943, which cancelled and declared null and void T.C.T.
No. 23783 issued in the name of Fermin Paz and directed the Register of
Deeds to issue a new one in lieu thereof in the name of Aurelio Reyes.
The only mention of the sale at public auction was made when the
registration court stated “On petition of Dr. Aurelio Reyes, purchaser
at public auction, of the property described in the transfer
certificate of title in question, in order that his right thereto may
be properly inscribed * * * “. It is true that a sale at public auction
is presumed valid and legal unless the contrary is proven. Considering,
however, the allegation in the present complaint “That the sale at
public auction of the said properties by the Chief of the Department of
Finance and The City Treasurer of the Government of the City of Manila,
was made and effected without notice to the deceased Fermin Paz or to
any of his heirs, without due publication in newspapers of general
circulation in the City of Manila, without posting the notice of the
said sales at the City Hall, and in all respects, without complying
with the formalities required by law in the premises”; that these
requirements of the law should be strictly complied with; that their
compliance would give validity and legality to the sale at public
auction which was the basis for the issuance of the new transfer
certificate of title; that if the orders of February 27, 1943, had been
entered without jurisdiction because the sale a public auction was null
and void, the same cannot be invoked as basis for the plea of res adjudicata;
and that plaintiffs-appellants are ready to prove that the legal
requirements relative to advertisement and posting of notice were not
observed in the public auction sale of the properties in question, we
believe that res adjudicata does not appear to be indubitable (section 3, Rule 8).

As additional grounds for the motion to dismiss,
defendants-appellees alleged prescription of action and non- compliance
with Section 77 of Republic Act No. 1837. The present action is one for
the annulment of a tax sale, the plaintiffs-appellants asserting that
in said sale the statutory requirements relative to advertisement and
posting of notice were not observed. The averments in the complaint, if
true, rendered the tax sale void ab initio. It is a familiar rule that action to set aside a contract which is void ab initio, does not prescribe (Art. 1410 N.C.C.; Eugenio, et al., vs. Perdido, et al., 97 Phil., 41; Corpuz, et al., vs. Beltran, et al., 97 Phil., 772; 51 Off. Gaz., 5631).

According to said Section 77, no court shall entertain any suit
assailing the validity of a tax sale of real estate until the taxpayer
shall have paid into the court the amount for which the real estate was
sold, together with the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum,
from the date of sale to the institution of the suit.
Defendants-appellees contend that the lower court had no jurisdiction
to entertain the present case, as there was no allegation in the
complaint that plaintiff-appellants had complied with said requirements
or that receipt was produced showing payment of such amounts. The Court
having entertained the complaint, the presumption is that the
requirements of the law had been fulfilled. The failure to allege
compliance in the complaint or to attach there with a receipt showing
payment, does not perforce indicate that no such payments were made. It
is incumbent upon the defendants-appellees to prove their assertion,
giving the plaintiffs-appellants the opportunity to show otherwise. In
order, therefore, to remove the dubious character of this ground, the
lower court should require the adduction of proofs by the parties.

In view hereof, the lower court should be, as it is hereby ordered,
to defer its ruling on the motion to dismiss, until after the hearing
on the merits. The order of May 27, 1959, dismissing the
plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint is set aside and the case is remanded
to the court of origin, for further proceedings. No costs.

Bengzon,C. J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., in the result.
Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.