This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The above jurisprudential tenor clearly demonstrates that the burden to prove compliance with the validity of the proceedings leading up to the tax delinquency sale is incumbent upon the buyer or the winning bidder, which, in this case, is the respondent. This is premised on the rule that a sale of land for tax delinquency is in derogation of property and due process rights of the registered owner. In order to be valid, the steps required by law must be strictly followed.[27] The burden to show that such steps were taken lies on the person claiming its validity, for the Court cannot allow mere presumption of regularity to take precedence over the right of a property owner to due process accorded no less than by the Constitution. | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners' cause of action is predicated on the absence of notice to them as alleged co-owners.We have previously ruled that it is incumbent upon the city treasurer to send the notice directly to the taxpayer -- the registered owner of the property -- in order to protect the latter's interests. Although preceded by proper advertisement and publication, an auction sale is void absent an actual notice to a delinquent taxpayer.[107] As to who is the taxpayer entitled to notice, it is the declared or registered owner as appearing in the tax rolls or property tax record cards of the municipality or city where the property is located. In Talusan v. Tayag,[108] the Court held that for purposes of the collection of real property taxes, the registered owner of the property is considered the taxpayer. Hence, only the registered owner is entitled to a notice of tax delinquency and other proceedings relative to the tax sale.[109] As petitioners failed to show they are the declared owners as shown in the tax rolls and tax records of respondent City Government of Tagaytay, the CA did not err in affirming the dismissal of their complaint. | |||||
|
2006-12-05 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Parenthetically, when the provincial assessor failed to serve a separate notice to Conchita the true and lawful owner that her land was to be auctioned off due to non-payment of real estate taxes, he violated Section 73[30] of Presidential Decree No. 464, otherwise known as the Real Property Tax Code, which provides that a copy of the notice shall forthwith be sent by registered mail, or by messenger or through the barrio captain to the delinquent taxpayer, at his address shown on the tax record cards or at his residence. The auction sale, therefore, was null and void for non-compliance with the provisions of the Real Property Tax Code on mandatory notice.[31] | |||||