G.R. No. L-3655 & L-3656 April 28, 1951.
MIGUEL M. RAMOS AND AURORA V. ARGOSINO, petitioners, vs. VALENTINA VILLAVERDE, ET AL., respondents. (L-3655)

MIGUEL M. RAMOS AND AURORA V. ARGOSINO, petitioners, vs. PAULA FLORIDO, ET AL., respondents. (L-3656)

FACTS

Prior to March 1939, the registered owners of Lot No. 1904 were Perfecto Reyes and Valentina Villaverde, and of Lot No. 3439 was Juan Jorque, both in the Lopez (Quezon) cadastre. These lots were forfeited for delinquency in tax payment and sold at public auction to Agapito Vergara (Lot No. 1904 for P10 and Lot No. 3439 for P100). Vergara later sold both lots to the spouses Miguel M. Ramos and Aurora V. Argosino for P3,000 each. In 1947, the spouses filed petitions in the cadastral case, alleging the loss of the owners’ duplicate certificates of title and praying for new ones to be issued in their favor. The court granted the petitions over the objections of the registered owners. The registered owners challenged the validity of the tax sales, arguing, among other grounds, that the sales were not advertised in a newspaper and no notice was sent to them by registered mail. The Court of Appeals found that the applicable law at the time of the sales in March 1939 was Section 41 of Act No. 3995 , not Section 35 of Commonwealth Act No. 470 . Act No. 3995 required publication of the notice of sale once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the province and sending a copy by registered mail to the delinquent taxpayer. The purchasers admitted there was no newspaper publication but asserted there was no newspaper published in Quezon Province. They also conceded that no notices were sent by registered mail but claimed notices were transmitted by messengers.

ISSUE

Whether the tax sales of the lots in March 1939 were valid, considering the alleged non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirements under the governing law, Section 41 of Act No. 3995 .

RULING

The tax sales were invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The governing law was Section 41 of Act No. 3995 , which mandated that notice of the sale be published in a newspaper of general circulation published in the province and that a copy be sent by registered mail to the delinquent taxpayer. The Court found it unnecessary to decide on the issue of newspaper publication due to the clear resolution of the second ground. It was conceded that no notices were sent by registered mail. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the requirement of notice by registered mail under Act No. 3995 was mandatory and exclusive, and sending notice by messenger was not a permissible substitute. This interpretation was supported by the fact that the subsequent law, Commonwealth Act No. 470 , explicitly added notice by messenger as an alternative, which would have been superfluous if it were already allowed under the prior law. Strict compliance with the prescribed steps is required as a tax sale is in derogation of property rights and due process.