G.R. No. L-26844 - De Leon vs. Pampanga Sugar Development Co., Inc.

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging decisions rendered by the Court of Appeals.
The petition specifically assailed the November 26, 2012 Decision and the April 22, 2014 Resolution of the CA, which reversed the June 23, 2010 RTC decision regarding the cancellation of a condominium certificate of title (CCT) and the issuance of a new one.

Petitioner: Ofelia Gamilla, who emerged as the highest bidder in the public auction of the property.
Respondent: Burgundy Realty Corporation (BRC), the registered owner of the subject condominium unit.
The subject property is a condominium unit covered by CCT No. 5708, situated at B. Gonzales, Loyola Heights, Diliman, Quezon City, with a total floor area of thirty (30) square meters.

On May 10, 2005, the City Treasurer of Quezon City issued a Statement of Delinquency to BRC regarding unpaid real property taxes amounting to P36,323.38, instructing payment within 10 days.
On July 28, 2005, a Final Notice of Delinquency was delivered, reiterating the demand and informing BRC that failure to pay would lead to further legal action.
Following persistent non-payment, a Warrant of Levy was issued, resulting in the inscription of the levy on Tax Declaration No. D-056-08799 and annotation on CCT No. 5708.

The Notice of Sale was published in specified newspapers and posted conspicuously at public locations, ensuring wide dissemination.
On September 15, 2005, the public auction was held where Ofelia Gamilla was declared the highest bidder.
On September 30, 2005, a certificate of sale was issued in Gamilla’s favor, which was subsequently annotated on CCT No. 5708.
After one year, the City Treasurer executed the Final Bill of Sale, and the certificate of sale was further annotated, leading Gamilla to file a petition for cancellation of CCT No. 5708 and for the issuance of a new title.

BRC opposed the petition, contending that the auction sale did not conform to the requirements of Section 176 of R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) due to alleged irregularities:

Argued that there was no proper notice of levy on the subject property.
Claimed that the Statement of Delinquency was insufficient as a notice required by law.

Gamilla countered that BRC’s opposition should have been rejected for failing to comply with Section 267 of R.A. No. 7160, which mandated the deposit of the amount for which the property was sold, along with interest.
The RTC, in a ruling on June 23, 2010, found no irregularity in the auction process and ordered the cancellation of CCT No. 5708 with the issuance of a new title in Gamilla’s name.
BRC’s failure to deposit the requisite amount as stipulated under Section 267 resulted in its opposition being declared in default, and the matter was elevated to the Court of Appeals.
The CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision, primarily on the ground that the auction sale was irregular due to the alleged absence of proper notice to BRC.

Gamilla argued that the CA erred in entertaining BRC’s appeal since BRC did not comply with the jurisdictional requirement of depositing the sale amount as mandated by Section 267 of R.A. No. 7160.
Further, it was asserted that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the City Treasurer in delivering the notices could not be overturned by mere denial of receipt.
BRC maintained its earlier contention that the auction sale was void ab initio due to procedural lapses, particularly in the process of notifying the taxpayer of the delinquency.

Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in taking cognizance of the case despite BRC’s failure to comply with the deposit requirement under Section 267 of R.A. No. 7160.
Whether the auction sale of the subject property should be annulled based on the contention that there was an irregularity in the issuance of a proper notice of delinquency to BRC.