Belarmino v. Baquizal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns seven parcels of land originally owned by Estanislao Amier. Following his death, Escolastico Amier declared these lands as his own in 1902. The lands were subsequently sold at public auction in 1903 due to unpaid territorial taxes. Gaudencio Apuya purchased the lands at this sale and received a certificate of sale. Later, Apuya sold this certificate to Rosalia Diasanta, who eventually sold her rights to the plaintiff, Serafin Belarmino. Diasanta received a deed for the lands from the provincial treasurer in 2007, as the lands were not redeemed. The lands were also sold twice more for unpaid taxes and redeemed each time by Diasanta. The defendants are the heirs of Estanislao Amier. Procedural History: The plaintiffs, Serafin Belarmino et al., filed suit seeking ownership of the seven parcels of land. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them owners and ordering the defendants to deliver possession of the lands. The defendants, Miguela Baquizal et al., appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellants' primary assignment of error challenges the lower court's finding that the assignment of the tax sale certificate by Gaudencio Apuya to Rosalia Diasanta was valid, and consequently, that the deed issued to Diasanta transferred valid title. The appellants argue that the tax sale certificate is not assignable and that a deed issued to anyone other than the original purchaser at the tax sale is void. This argument is based on the Supreme Court's prior ruling in Black vs. Nygren, which held that tax sale certificates are not assignable and deeds must be issued to the original purchaser as prescribed by law.
Issue(s)
Whether a certificate of sale issued at a tax auction is assignable under Act No. 82. Whether a tax deed issued to the assignee of a purchaser (Rosalia Diasanta) instead of the original purchaser (Gaudencio Apuya) is valid and effective to transfer title.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the certificate of sale is not assignable under the provisions of the Municipal Code (Act No. 82). Applying the precedent set in Black v. Nygren (8 Phil. Rep., 205), the Court emphasized that a writ of mandamus cannot compel an officer to perform a duty unless that duty is clearly defined by law. The Court noted that Section 18 of the Municipal Code specifically directs the treasurer to execute the deed to the 'purchaser.' Because the law contains no provision for the execution of a tax deed to an assignee, the right is restricted solely to the party who made the purchase at the public sale. This restrictive interpretation is necessary because tax sales involve the forced divestment of property. Therefore, any attempt to assign the interest in the certificate of sale before the issuance of the deed is not sanctioned by the statute. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the tax deed issued to Rosalia Diasanta was void and transferred no title to her or her successor, Serafin Belarmino. It reasoned that every statute providing for the divestment of property under special authority must be construed strictly against the state and the purchaser. Citing American jurisprudence such as Thatcher v. Powell and Alexander v. Savage, the Court clarified that an officer invested with the power to sell land must pursue the precise course prescribed by law. A tax deed made to one substituted for the purchaser, or to any grantee other than the one sanctioned by the statute, is inherently invalid. Since the statutory authority to convey was not pursued with precision, the provincial treasurer's act of issuing the deed to an assignee was an ultra vires act. Consequently, the defendants, as heirs of the original owner, could not be divested of their property through a void instrument.
Main Doctrine
A certificate of tax sale is not assignable, and a deed executed by the provincial treasurer to any person other than the original purchaser at the tax sale is void.