G.R. No. L-5773 May 10, 1954
EULALIA, ESTANISLAWA, PEDRO, JOVITO, NICANOR and SUSANA, all surnamed CASIMIRO, petitioners, vs. FABIAN SOBERANO, respondent.

FACTS

The petitioners are the heirs of Cirila Ortega, who died intestate on May 13, 1945. A property in Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 41201 in Ortega’s name, became delinquent in the payment of real estate taxes for the second semester of 1945 and the years 1946 and 1947. Due to this delinquency, the City Treasurer of Manila sold the property at public auction on December 29, 1947. The respondent, Fabian Soberano, purchased a portion of the property consisting of 94 square meters. The City Treasurer executed a Deed of Sale in his favor on September 29, 1949, which was registered and annotated on the title. The City Treasurer had sent letters to Cirila Ortega’s last known addresses in 1948 to advise her of the sale and her right to repurchase, but these were returned by the post office. On October 13, 1949, the petitioners deposited with the Clerk of Court the sum of P12.06 to cover the delinquent taxes and interests. They challenged the validity of the tax sale, arguing that the sale price of P10.19 for the 94-square-meter portion was unconscionably low and that the notice of delinquency and sale was ineffective because it was sent to a deceased person.

ISSUE

Whether the tax sale conducted by the City Treasurer of Manila is valid despite the death of the registered owner and the allegedly unconscionably low sale price.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the validity of the tax sale. The Court ruled that the procedure followed by the City Treasurer was regular and in accordance with law. The death of Cirila Ortega did not invalidate the proceedings because her heirs (the petitioners) could have acted in her stead to address the tax delinquency and were negligent in failing to do so. Citing Valbuena vs. Torres, the Court held that the inability to personally notify a deceased owner does not affect the validity of the tax sale when heirs exist who could have taken care of the property. Regarding the sale price, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ finding that the price was not unconscionable, considering the total lot size was only 210 square meters and it was improbable a much smaller portion would sell for the same amount. The Court emphasized the petitioners’ carelessness, negligence, and laches, noting they had custody of the deceased’s papers, including the title and tax receipts, and failed to pay the taxes or repurchase the property within the allowed period. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed without costs.