G.R. No.

L-26677 March 27, 1981

HEIRS OF MARIANO V. TAJONERA, petitioners,
vs.
CORT OF A!!EALS " a#$ AMAN%A TRIGAL MANEL T. !A&, ROSARIO SANTOS
VIRA', MANEL VIRA', GLORIA SANTOS CARLOS, GIL CARLOS, FELICITACION
SANTOS, JOHN %OE, ALEJAN%RA !A& GARCIA, CEFERINO GARCIA a#$
VICTORIA NAVARRO, respondents.
FACTS:
Fermin Paz was a registered owner of two parcels of land.When Fermin Paz and his
wife Amanda Trigal, died, they were srvived !y their children and grandchildren who
are the private respondents in this petition."t was manel Paz who administered the
property and paid ta#es thereon and all concerns regarding the said property !e
addressed to him. And he and the said co$heirs claimed that they did not receive any
notice of sale of property and was not also esta!lished to the trial cort%s satisfaction.&n
'ovem!er (),*+)*, the city treasrer sold the said property in favor of ,r. arelio -eyes
for delin.ent ta#es from *+/+ to *+)*. And on 0ly *1,*+)/ a final deed of sale was
issed in favor of ,r. -eyes. 2pon petition of the latter which was p!lished in a
newspaper of general circlation, and thereafter !eing no opposition filed, the land
registration cort cancelled the certificate of title in the name of fermin paz and in issed
in the name of ,r. reyes. &n Sept. /,*+)/, ,r. -eyes sold the said lot to 0anita david
which was issed to her name. &n 0n. (3,*+)), 0anita david sold the same lots to
4ariano Ta5onera and was issed to his name. Ta5onera eventally sold a porion of the
said lot to the city of manila. &n ,ec. (*,*+)6, Amanda trigal and her co$heirs to the
deceased fermin paz, filed sit against ,r. -eyes and ta5onera and the city of treasrer
e#clding 0anita david, to annl the p!lic action sale of the lots in .estion in favor
of dr. -eyes and all s!se.ent transfers thereof, inclding 4ariano Ta5onera, on the
grond that p!lic action sale was done withot notice to fermin paz, the registered
owner of the said property, or to any of his heirs pon his death.
"SS27:
W&' the said rling of velayo vs &rdonez is applica!le in this case 8petitioner9.
:7;,:
The cited case of <elayo vs. &rdonez, et al., cited !y cort of appeals, says that the
annlment of the action sale condcted !y the city treasrer and the confirmation of
the rights of the original registered owner therein came at a time when the property sold
at p!lic action for ta# delin.ency had not yet passed to the hands of an innocent
prchaser for vale, nli=e in the case at !ar. While respondents% plight may merit some
sympathy at the pain of losing their property for ta# delin.ency, it mst !e !orne in
mind that it was de primarily to their neglect and defalt in paying their 5st ta#
o!ligation and sleeping on their rights and long delay of five years !efore filing their
action for recovery dring which the right is of innocent prchasers for vale intervened.
Acccordingly, the decision nder review is reversed and the complaint is here!y
dismissed.