“There being no bidders present on the date of the public auction, the City Government of Davao acquired the properties”
(Part 3)
In the case of the City of Davao v. The Intestate Estate of Amado S. Dalisay (Estate), the Estate owned five parcels of land all in Davao City.
The properties were advertised for sale at a public auction for non-payment of real estate taxes on July 19, 2004.
There being no bidders present on the date of the public auction, the City Government of Davao acquired the properties pursuant to Section 263 of Republic Act 7160.
On Sept. 13, 2005, or more than a year after the public auction, the Declarations of Forfeiture were issued by the City Treasurer.
“On Oct. 3, 2005, the City caused the annotation of the five Declarations of Forfeiture on the corresponding TCTs of the properties. Subsequently, the Estate inquired from the City Treasurer’s Office regarding the amount of the redemption price of the properties” (G.R. 207791, July 15, 2015).
“On Sept. 11, 2006 (or almost a year thereafter), the Real Property Tax Division of the City furnished the Estate copies of the billing statements containing a handwritten summary of the amount… [T]hus, on September 13, 2006 (or two days later), the Estate delivered a written tender of payment to the City Treasurer and, at the same time, tendered the amount of P5,000,000.00” (G.R. 207791, July 15, 2015).
The City, however, refused to accept the amount which constrained the Estate to file the Notice to Deposit of P5,000,000.00 with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC.
“An action for redemption, consignation and damages against the City was consequently filed by the Estate with the RTC.”
“On June 6, 2008, the RTC ruled in favor of the Estate, finding the latter’s evidence as preponderantly acceptable in establishing its right of redemption.
“The City was ordered to: 1) receive the P5,000,000.00 deposited with the Clerk of Court, as full payment of the redemption price of the forfeited properties; and 2) issue a certificate of redemption in favor of the Estate” (G.R. 207791, July 15, 2015).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC.
Hence, the City of Davao filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
The issue in the Supreme Court was “[w]hether the one year redemption period of forfeited tax delinquent properties purchased by the local government for want of a bidder is reckoned from the date of the auction or sale or from the date of the issuance of the declaration of forfeiture.”
“The delay on the part of the Estate to at least inquire into the outcome of the auction and its misplaced reliance on a curious document (billing statements) heightens the belief of the Court that the City may not be deprived of a right that has long been vested in its favor.”
“The odd timing in the issuance of the Declarations of Forfeiture and its very contents which observably benefit the Estate to the core form a nagging doubt that may not be easily shrugged off.
“This hinders the Court from applying the exceptions to the rule on estoppel, when doing this would result in more impropriety.”
“In this case, the period to redeem the subject properties of this case had long expired on July 19, 2005, and since then, the forfeiture of the properties had become absolute.
“The failure of the Estate to validly exercise its right of redemption within the statutory period had already resulted in the consolidation of ownership over the properties by the City.”
