Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9303)
Facts:
Cirilo Punzalan v. Alfredo S. Ascano, G.R. No. L-9303. July 11, 1957, the Supreme Court En Banc, Felix, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellee Cirilo Punzalan owned a parcel at 120–124 Lopez Jaena, Paco, Manila, assessed at P83,400. On May 21, 1948 the City Treasurer of Manila sold the property at public auction for unpaid real estate taxes in the amount of P18.21, issued a certificate to the purchaser, and on May 28, 1949 executed a final and absolute deed of sale pursuant to Sections 2498 and 2500 of the Revised Administrative Code. Notices of sale addressed to Punzalan (Exhs. A and B) were returned undelivered.
Punzalan learned of the sale only after the purchaser visited the property; he attempted to redeem it but failed. On June 29, 1949 Punzalan sued in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 8358) to annul the tax-sale in favor of Alfredo S. Ascano and for damages. The trial court declared the sale null and void and awarded P500 in damages on three grounds: (1) the publication of the required notice in the newspaper Bagong Balita Ng Bayan was insufficient because that paper lacked general circulation for a city like Manila; (2) Ascano, a government officer in charge of the Division of Foreign Fund Control, was prohibited by Section 579 of the Revised Administrative Code from purchasing property sold for nonpayment of public tax; and (3) equitable considerations.
Ascano appealed to the Court of Appeals, which declined to resolve the sole disputed factual issue (whether Bagong Balita Ng Bayan was a newspaper of general circulation) and certified the case to the Supreme Court because the appellant relied on a Bureau of Posts certificate and the doctrine in Basa v. Mercado, 61 Phil. 632. The Supreme Court found the newspaper to be of general circulation but limited its con...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Section 579 of the Revised Administrative Code bar a government officer from purchasing property sold by a municipal government for unpaid taxes, thus rendering the tax sale void?
- Should the trial court's award of P500 in damages to Punza...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)