GR L 5478; (February, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5478
SERAFIN BELARMINO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. MIGUELA BAQUIZAL, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
February 26, 1910
FACTS:
Seven parcels of land, originally owned by Estanislao Amier (who died intestate in 1892), were declared for taxation in 1902 by Escolastico Amier (a nephew and one of Estanislao’s heirs). Escolastico was authorized to declare the lands for taxation but not as his exclusive property. On May 7, 1903, the lands were sold at a public tax sale due to unpaid taxes. Gaudencio Apuya purchased the lands and received a certificate of sale.
On June 23, 1903, Apuya sold his certificate of sale and all his interest to Rosalia Diasanta. On September 5, 1907, Diasanta, in turn, sold her rights in the lands to Serafin Belarmino, the plaintiff-appellee. On August 23, 1906, Rosalia Diasanta, as the assignee of Apuya, received a tax deed from the provincial treasurer of Albay, as the lands were not redeemed. The lands were subsequently sold twice more for unpaid taxes and each time redeemed by Diasanta.
The heirs of Estanislao Amier (Miguela Baquizal, et al., defendants-appellants) contested the validity of the tax deed issued to Diasanta. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (Belarmino et al.), declaring them owners of the lands and ordering the defendants to deliver possession. The defendants appealed, arguing that the assignment of the certificate of sale was invalid and that the deed issued to Diasanta did not transfer title.
ISSUE:
Whether a certificate of tax sale is assignable and if a tax deed, subsequently made by the provincial treasurer, can validly transfer title to an assignee of the purchaser, rather than to the original purchaser at the tax sale.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court. Citing the precedent set in Black vs. Nygren (8 Phil. Rep., 205), the Court held that Section 18 of the Municipal Code ( Act No. 82 ) explicitly provides that the provincial treasurer “shall… execute deed… to the purchaser” at the tax sale. The law makes no provision for the issuance of such a deed to an assignee of the purchaser.
The Court emphasized the general rule that statutes providing a method by which a person may be divested of their property under a special authority must be construed strictly. An officer invested with such power must precisely follow the course prescribed by law, or their act is invalid. Therefore, a tax deed made to one substituted for the purchaser, or to any grantee other than the one sanctioned by the statute, is void. The statutory authority to convey must be strictly pursued, and the deed made only to those whom the law authorizes its execution.
Applying this principle, the Court ruled that the certificate of sale was not assignable, and a deed issued to any person other than the original purchaser at the tax sale is void. Consequently, the judgment of the court below was reversed, and the plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed.