Case Digest (G.R. No. 171033)
Facts:
City Mayor, City Treasurer, City Assessor, All of Quezon City, and Alvin Emerson S. Yu v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 171033, August 03, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are the City Mayor, City Treasurer, and City Assessor of Quezon City and Alvin Emerson S. Yu; the respondent is Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). The dispute arose from competing claims to properties formerly owned by spouses Roberto and Monette Naval, which had been mortgaged to RCBC, foreclosed in 1998, and sold at public auction with certificates of sale issued to RCBC on August 4, 1998 (allegedly registered only on February 10, 2004).
Separately, on May 30, 2003 the City Treasurer of Quezon City conducted an auction of tax‑delinquent properties that included the townhouse units and parcel covered by TCT Nos. N‑167986, N‑167987 and N‑167988; Alvin Emerson S. Yu was adjudged highest bidder and was issued Certificates of Sale of Delinquent Property which were registered with the Register of Deeds on February 10, 2004. On June 10, 2004 RCBC tendered payment of assessed tax delinquencies, interest, and costs for the subject properties, but the City Treasurer refused to accept the tender. RCBC then filed a petition with the City Treasurer on June 15, 2004 asking that its tender be accepted and a certificate of redemption issued; this too was denied.
RCBC filed a Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 101, Quezon City (SP Civil Action Q‑04‑53522). The RTC initially denied the petition in an Order dated December 6, 2004. RCBC moved for reconsideration. On December 6, 2005 the RTC rendered a Decision granting the petition and ordered the public respondents to accept RCBC’s tender, issue a certificate of redemption in RCBC’s name, and cancel the certificate of tax sale issued to the private respondent. The RTC reasoned that the one‑year redemption period runs from registration/annotation of the certificate of sale and held that Section 261 of R.A. No. 7160 did not amend Section 78 of P.D. No. 464.
The petitioners sought review in this Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging (a) the RTC’s treatment of the repeal of P.D. No. 464 by R.A. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did R.A. No. 7160 repeal P.D. No. 464 (the Real Property Tax Code)?
- May a plaintiff invoke a local ordinance provision not pleaded in the original petition later in the proceedings without changing the nature of the cause of action?
- Is the one‑year redemption period for tax‑delinquent properties computed from the date of sale (Section 261, R.A. No. 7160) or from the date of registration/annotation of the certificate of sale (Section 78, P.D. No. 464 / Section...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)