Sps. Tan V Bantegui
Sps. Tan V Bantegui
Sps. Tan V Bantegui
On May 3,1990, the same property was sold by the Pereyras to the spouses
Ramon and Rosita Tan for P350,000 with the latter paying the amount of
P300,000 to the Rural Bank of Imus, Cavite for the release of the mortgage
per agreement by the parties. The Tans likewise paid the overdue taxes and
other expenses incurred by the Pereyras pertaining to said mortgage. The
Tans did not immediately take possession of the property nor inform the
occupants (Caedos ).
But in the latter part of 1990 the Tans through their lawyer informed the
Caedos of their ownership and demanded that they vacate the property.
They later filed an action for ejectment against the Caedos before the MTC of
Quezon City on Jan. 18,1991.
On Oct. 31,1991 the court ruled in favor of Tans. The Caedos interposed an
appeal but failed to appear during the hearing of the case and was declared
in default and later ejected from the property on Feb. 20,1994 when the
house was demolished.
On Feb 11,1992, Bantegui, through her sister Guadalupe Bautista filed a
complaint for the annulment of sale , quieting of title, injunction and
damages with the RTC of Quezon . spouses Caedo enjoined the complaint.
The complaint was later amended on May 14, 1992, impleading the spouses
Capistrano and the City Treasurer of Quezon City as co-defendants, and
deleting quieting of title from the prayer and inserting reconveyance.
RTC decided in favor of respondents, petitioners appealed to the CA.
CA decided in favor of respondent. Declaring that petitioners were not
purchasers in good faith and had no better right to the subject property than
that of any of their predecessor-in-interest, that the auction was tainted with
irregularities such as: no notice of delinquency and of sale were sent to the
owner.
ISSUES:
WON the Auction sale was valid.
RULING:
No. the auction sale was not valid.
First, no notice of delinquency or of sale was given to either Gorgonia
Bantegui, the delinquent owner; or to her representative as provided under
Section 65 and 73 of PD 464 the Real Property Tax Code
The auction sale of real property for the collection of delinquent taxes is in
personam, not in rem. Although sufficient in proceedings in rem like land
registration, mere notice by publication will not satisfy the requirements of
Petitioners were not innocent purchasers for value. Despite their awareness
of defects in their title, they still failed to investigate or take the necessary
precaution.
Good faith is a question of intention. It consists in the possessors belief that
the person from whom a thing has been received is its owner and can convey
title. It is determined by outward acts and proven conduct
Purchasers cannot close their eyes to facts that should have put any
reasonable person upon guard, and then claim that they acted in good faith
under the belief that there was no defect in the title. If petitioners do not
investigate or take precaution despite knowing certain facts, they cannot be
considered in good faith.
The defense of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not extend to a
transferee who takes the title despite a notice of the flaw in it. From a
vendor who does not have any title to begin with, no right is passed to a
transferee.
In the present case, the exercise of the right of possession over the property
was attempted by none of the purchasers, except petitioners. Furthermore,
nothing on the record shows that, aside from Respondent Bantegui, the
purchasers paid real property taxes, as required of every registered property
owner.
Curiously, the city government allowed Respondent Bantegui to continue
paying real property taxes even after the redemption period and the
confirmation of the final bill of sale. Moreover, the records mention no
payment of real property taxes from 1984 to 1986.
The Register of Deeds issued a reconstituted title in her name, in which the
property had been registered as early as 1959. For reasons known only to
the alleged purchasers, no attempt was even made to have the title
immediately cancelled. It is basic that registration does not vest title, which
is a mere evidence of title to a property.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the assailed Decision and
Resolution are AFFIRMED