G.R. No. L-9061 - Velayo vs. Ordoveza

On October 29, 1949, following the issuance of a corresponding notice, the City Treasurer of Manila conducted a public auction.
The auction was for the property described in the notice as “LAND containing an area of 99.40 SQUARE METERS, more or less, with improvements thereon, located at 813 Lepanto, Sampaloc, Manila, and designated as Lot 16, Block 35, Assessment No. 3305” for the years 1948 and 1949, including penalties and costs.
The sum realized at auction was P185.95, representing unpaid real estate taxes, penalties, and costs.

The property sold was registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 79178 in the name of Fernando, Ramon, Annie, Beatriz, and Isabelita Ordoveza.
The certificate of title described the property differently:

A parcel described as “Lot No. 20 of Block No. 4002 of the Cadastral Survey of the City of Manila” with an area of approximately 94.80 square meters.
A second parcel described as “Lot No. 21 of Block No. 4002” with an area of about 2.30 square meters.

The notice of sale, however, described the property as one lot (Lot 16, Block 35) with an area of 99.40 square meters, creating inconsistency in the lot and block numbers as well as the area.

On November 20, 1950, when Fernando Ordoveza attempted to pay the real estate tax, he was informed of the sale and subsequently wrote to petitioner Ricardo Velayo, offering to reimburse the tax amount along with 15% interest (letter marked as Exhibit A).
Velayo did not respond to this offer, and on December 4, 1950, secured from the City Treasurer the certificate of sale in his favor.
On December 11, 1950, Ordoveza sent another letter (Exhibit B) directly to the City Treasurer:

He stated surprise at the sale occurring without prior notice.
He enclosed a money order for P300.72 to cover the due taxes, interest, and costs, requesting redemption of the property.

The City Treasurer responded on December 19, 1950, clarifying that the payment was accepted only as a deposit since the redemption period had expired on October 29, 1950.
On January 17, 1951, the Register of Deeds of Manila demanded the production of the owner’s duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 79178 for proper annotation.
On November 12, 1951, the City Treasurer executed the corresponding deed of sale (Exhibit C) in favor of Velayo.

On November 10, 1954, Velayo filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Manila:

He asserted his purchase of “Lot 16, Block 35” from the tax delinquency auction.
He contended that the property (also identified as Lots Nos. 20 and 21, Block No. 4002) had not been redeemed within the statutory period.
He prayed for the registration of the deed of sale, cancellation of the memorandum in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 79178, and the issuance of a new certificate of title in his name.

The description in the deed of sale differed from that in the certificate of title.
The sale price (P185.95) was grossly inadequate compared to the assessed value (P4,910) of the property.
Velayo’s delay in filing the certificate of sale was seen as a tactic to prevent redemption within the statutory period.
The public notice and sale were improperly conducted by the City Treasurer instead of the designated City Assessors.

On February 22, 1955, the Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the Ordovezas, denying Velayo's petition.
Subsequently, Velayo appealed the decision.

Whether the City Treasurer was authorized under Republic Act No. 409 to conduct the public auction, issue the certificate of sale, and execute the deed of sale.
Whether the functions prescribed by law for the collection of delinquent real estate taxes and the advertisement and sale of properties should have been performed exclusively by the City Assessor and Collector.

Whether the significant differences between the description in the published notice (Lot 16, Block 35) and that in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 79178 (Lots Nos. 20 and 21, Block No. 4002) render the tax sale invalid.
Whether the misdescription affects the reliability and full faith in the Torrens system.

Whether Velayo's delay in filing the certificate of sale was an attempt to thwart the statutory redemption rights of the Ordovezas.
Whether the procedural handling of the redemption and the subsequent acceptance of Ordoveza’s payment as mere deposit undermined the validity of the sale.