G.R. No. 105360 May 25, 1993
Pedro P. Pecson, petitioner, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Erlinda Tan, Juan Nuguid, Mamerto G. Nepomuceno, Anselmo O. Regis and Register of Deeds of Quezon City, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pedro P. Pecson was the registered owner of a parcel of land in Quezon City covered by TCT No. 79912. For non-payment of realty taxes, the property was sold at public auction on November 12, 1980 by respondent City Treasurer Anselmo O. Regis. Notices of the sale were sent to petitioner at “No. 79 Paquita Street, Sampaloc, Manila,” and were published in the Times Journal. A final notice to redeem was also sent to the same address. Petitioner claims his correct addresses were “No. 1009 Paquita St., Sampaloc” and “No. 79, Kamias Road, Quezon City,” and that he was no longer residing in Manila at the time. After no redemption was made, a Final Bill of Sale was executed in favor of respondent Mamerto G. Nepomuceno. Title was consolidated in Nepomuceno’s name, and TCT No. 79912 was cancelled and replaced with TCT No. 302292. Nepomuceno later sold the property to respondents Erlinda Tan and Juan Nuguid, who were issued TCT No. 308506. Petitioner filed a complaint to annul the auction sale, alleging lack of prior notice and notice of redemption. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, upholding the validity of the sale, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the sale at public auction of petitioner’s property for non-payment of taxes is valid despite the notices being sent to an allegedly incorrect address.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The auction sale was valid. Under Section 73 of P.D. No. 464 (Real Property Tax Code), notices may be sent to the delinquent taxpayer at the address shown in the tax rolls or at his residence if known. The records of the City Treasurer’s Office showed petitioner’s address as “1009 Paquita, Manila,” with the number “79” noted below, indicating a transfer to “No. 79 Paquita, Sampaloc, Manila.” The Court found that the Treasurer’s Office employees were not blameworthy for relying on these available tax records. Petitioner’s claim that notices sent to “No. 1009” would have been forwarded was undermined by the fact that a court notice sent to that address was returned unclaimed. The Court also noted that petitioner, a property owner and school teacher, failed to pay taxes for several years, did not redeem the property, and introduced improvements without reporting them for tax purposes, which could have updated his address. The other issues raised by petitioner regarding compliance with posting/announcement requirements and whether Tan and Nuguid were buyers in good faith were questions of fact, which are not reviewable in a Rule 45 appeal.