Facts:
Spouses Efren and Angelica formerly owned a lot in East Avenue
Subdivision in Diliman, QC. Petitioners withheld payment of the real property
taxes thereto from 1975 to 1982 as a form of protest against the government of
then President Marcos which resulted to QC local government selling the lot to
Aida Linao, the highest bidder. Petitioners Aquino claimed that they learned of
the sale only in April 1987 after they were informed by people squatting on the
property that Aida Linao was taking steps to eject them. They then filed an
action for annulment of title, reconveyance and damages against respondents
QuezonCity local government, its Treasurer, the Register of Deeds of Quezon
City and Aida Linao before the RTC of Quezon City. They charged that the Quezon
City local government sold their property without informing them of their tax
default, in derogation of the notice requirements of the law. They also impute
bad faith upon Aida Linao in buying their property despite knowledge of the
infirmities leading to the auction sale.
Issues:
1. Whether there was failure on the part of the Quezon City local
government to satisfy the notice requirements before selling the property for
tax delinquency; and
2. Whether there was failure on the part of the Quezon City local
government to give actual notice of the impending sale despite knowing that the
mailed notices were returned unclaimed.
3. Whether or not Petitioners Aquino were estopped to question the
absence of notice given their admission that they deliberately did not pay
their taxes.
Held:
Petition denied.
The owner of the real property subject to tax is supposed to be
given a Notice of Tax Delinquency stating that if the property tax is not paid,
the local government would sell the real property to satisfy the tax in
arrears. This consists of four separate measures: 1) posting of the notice of
tax delinquency at the main entrance of the city hall; 2) posting of the notice
of tax delinquency in a public and conspicuous place in each barangay of the
city; 3) publication of the notice of tax delinquency once a week for three
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the city; and 4)
verbal announcement of the existence of the notice of tax delinquency by a
crier at the market place for at least three market days.
The second notice under Section 73 pertains to a Notice of Sale at
Public Auction notifying the owner of the real property that since there was
failure to heed the first notice, the local government would now be selling his
delinquent property at public auction on a specified date to satisfy the tax in
arrear
While it seems the Quezon City local government complied with the
second set of requirements in selling their lot, it failed to do the same with
the first. The only compliance by the Quezon City local government was the
sending of a Notice of Intent to Sell by registered mail to the last known
address of Petitioners Aquino. No posting or publication of any kind was done.
A simple application of the elementary rules of statutory
construction provides a straightforward resolution to this conflict. Section 65
basically provides that upon delinquency of a real property tax, a notice of
delinquency shall be given. This is followed by Section 66, penalty for
delinquency, and Section 67, application of the remedies. The latter reads
in its entirety as follows:
SECTION 67. Remedies
cumulative, simultaneous and unconditional. Collection of the real property tax
may be enforced through any or all of the remedies provided under this Code,
and the use or non-use of one remedy shall not be a bar against the institution
of the others. Formal demand for the payment of the delinquent taxes and
penalties due need not be made before any of such remedies may be resorted to;
notice of delinquency as required in Section sixty-five hereof shall be
sufficient for the purpose.
A rule of statutory construction is that a statute must be
construed as a whole. The meaning of the law is not to be extracted from a
single part, portion or section or from isolated words and phrases, clauses or
sentences, but from a general consideration or view of the act as a whole.
Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context.
Thus, while the Court agrees with the respondents interpretation
that there are three methods by which taxes may be enforced, petitioners are
correct in insisting that two notices must be sent to the taxpayer
concerned. Nevertheless, respondents still prevail because the Court is
satisfied that the two-notice requirement has been complied with by the
Treasurers Office.
Contrary to the stand taken by Petitioners Aquino, despite the
provisions of Section 65, the local government concerned need not post and
publish the notice of delinquency, it being sufficient that personal service
was done.
Petitioners Aquino admit that notice of delinquency was mailed,
hence, they cannot complain that their rights were not adequately protected.
Publication and posting not being indispensable, there was proper compliance
with Section 65.
Petitioners Aquino argue that actual notice is required and,
therefore, the mailing of the Notice of Sale to their last known address, which
they had abandoned, did not constitute valid notice under the law.
Petitioners Aquino do not deny that notices were sent to their or
their predecessors address, as shown in the tax records.
No comments:
Post a Comment