Couple to be deprived of lot without due process
Couple to be deprived of lot without due process
Updated 11:49pm (Mla time) Nov 07, 2004
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the November 8, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
(Last of three parts)
SPOUSES Martin and Melody del Rosario, absolute owners of a house and lot in New Intramuros Village, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, are going to lose their property without their knowledge and without due process, despite the constitutional guarantee that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process." They were never informed that a warrant of levy on their property had been issued, that the lot would be and had indeed been sold at public auction, and that the one-year period for redeeming the property had already expired. The appropriate notices were all sent to the wrong person.
To determine ownership of the property, the QC treasurer relied solely on the tax declaration (which has not been transferred to the Del Rosarios despite the payment of the transfer tax). It would have been prudent and easy for the treasurer to verify with the QC Register of Deeds, whose office is located in the same building and only one phone call away. But he did no such thing.
Besides, there are other documents to determine ownership, such as the deed of absolute sale, the certificate authorizing registration and the transfer tax receipt. All these are at the fingertips of the city treasurer.
The spouses wonder: "It is strange that City Hall could not find us (they reside on the property itself) and never thought of us when they were auctioning our property. But they miraculously did after they had awarded our property to a party that paid a paltry sum of P200,000 in relation to the true worth of the property."
City Hall claims that it used the tax declaration to ascertain the property's owner and where he lived.
But where does it say in the law that where a property is up for auction, the tax declaration would suffice to determine true ownership? Conversely, where does it say in the law that City Hall is inhibited from cross-checking other relevant documents, the most important of which is the title? In fact, justice and prudence demand that City Hall should do this if only to make sure it would not be transgressing on the property rights of a citizen.
3. The city treasurer is obliged by law to remit that part of the sale proceeds in excess of the tax delinquency (including interest), and sale expenses. The property was sold for P200,000 to satisfy a tax delinquency of P3,102.75. With the interest and sale expenses, the total liability added up to P9,553.47. Therefore, there was an excess of P190,446.53 which the city treasurer was duty-bound to remit to the Del Rosarios. Had he done this, the couple would have learned of the sale and would have had an opportunity to contest the sale and redeem the property within the grace period. But the treasurer did no such thing. It was gross negligence.
In the civil suit seeking payment for damages from city treasurer Victor B. Endriga and the buyer, Agasee Properties and Holding Corp. (APHC), the Del Rosarios wondered if the sale was "a willful intention to defraud the petitioners of their hard-earned property."
4. The Del Rosarios also charged APHC with apparent "bad faith" and negligence. Prospective participants in auction sales are enjoined by existing rules to first ascertain for themselves the existence of the title to the property they intend to buy before making any bid. Considering the amount of its bid, APHC should have verified property ownership, including an ocular inspection. This would have led APHC to discover that TCT 125655 in the name of spouses Maling was already cancelled and replaced by TCT 203106 in the name of spouses Del Rosario. Did APHC not know this fact or, knowing, "chose to conceal this fact to deprive the (real owners) of the chance to be notified of the auction sale and redeem it"? Article 19 of the Civil Code says that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith."
5. The law says that the city treasurer may auction a delinquent property (after the owner has been properly notified and he ignores the notification) "if the delinquency covers many years and the tax involved has run into a considerable sum."
But the delinquency did not cover "many years" and did not involve "a considerable sum." The period was less than three years and the amount involved was only P3,102.75.
The owners may have been negligent in not paying the tax promptly, but isn't depriving them of the property too harsh and constitutes an injustice?
6. Another question: City Hall sold only the lot where the house of the Del Rosarios stand because it is the lot that has a tax delinquency. What happens now to the house?
The auction rule and procedures City Hall has prescribed say that the lot and house should be auctioned off one after the other to avert a situation of conflicting ownerships.
The Del Rosarios wrote: "Possibly, the winning bidder made an ocular inspection of our property, saw a house worth millions of pesos on the lot being auctioned and forthwith offered to buy it at P200,000. So on a technicality that we failed to redeem the property within one year (which was due to bureaucratic inefficiency), he is asking the court to take the property from us and give it to him."
Let's face it: City Hall violated due process in selling the Del Rosario lot. Due process is a sacred right guaranteed by our Constitution. Even squatters are given formal notice of eviction. What about the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens like the Del Rosarios? The lot where they live was arbitrarily sold by City Hall without warning and without due process. Can anything be more vile?
Updated 11:49pm (Mla time) Nov 07, 2004
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the November 8, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
(Last of three parts)
SPOUSES Martin and Melody del Rosario, absolute owners of a house and lot in New Intramuros Village, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, are going to lose their property without their knowledge and without due process, despite the constitutional guarantee that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process." They were never informed that a warrant of levy on their property had been issued, that the lot would be and had indeed been sold at public auction, and that the one-year period for redeeming the property had already expired. The appropriate notices were all sent to the wrong person.
To determine ownership of the property, the QC treasurer relied solely on the tax declaration (which has not been transferred to the Del Rosarios despite the payment of the transfer tax). It would have been prudent and easy for the treasurer to verify with the QC Register of Deeds, whose office is located in the same building and only one phone call away. But he did no such thing.
Besides, there are other documents to determine ownership, such as the deed of absolute sale, the certificate authorizing registration and the transfer tax receipt. All these are at the fingertips of the city treasurer.
The spouses wonder: "It is strange that City Hall could not find us (they reside on the property itself) and never thought of us when they were auctioning our property. But they miraculously did after they had awarded our property to a party that paid a paltry sum of P200,000 in relation to the true worth of the property."
City Hall claims that it used the tax declaration to ascertain the property's owner and where he lived.
But where does it say in the law that where a property is up for auction, the tax declaration would suffice to determine true ownership? Conversely, where does it say in the law that City Hall is inhibited from cross-checking other relevant documents, the most important of which is the title? In fact, justice and prudence demand that City Hall should do this if only to make sure it would not be transgressing on the property rights of a citizen.
3. The city treasurer is obliged by law to remit that part of the sale proceeds in excess of the tax delinquency (including interest), and sale expenses. The property was sold for P200,000 to satisfy a tax delinquency of P3,102.75. With the interest and sale expenses, the total liability added up to P9,553.47. Therefore, there was an excess of P190,446.53 which the city treasurer was duty-bound to remit to the Del Rosarios. Had he done this, the couple would have learned of the sale and would have had an opportunity to contest the sale and redeem the property within the grace period. But the treasurer did no such thing. It was gross negligence.
In the civil suit seeking payment for damages from city treasurer Victor B. Endriga and the buyer, Agasee Properties and Holding Corp. (APHC), the Del Rosarios wondered if the sale was "a willful intention to defraud the petitioners of their hard-earned property."
4. The Del Rosarios also charged APHC with apparent "bad faith" and negligence. Prospective participants in auction sales are enjoined by existing rules to first ascertain for themselves the existence of the title to the property they intend to buy before making any bid. Considering the amount of its bid, APHC should have verified property ownership, including an ocular inspection. This would have led APHC to discover that TCT 125655 in the name of spouses Maling was already cancelled and replaced by TCT 203106 in the name of spouses Del Rosario. Did APHC not know this fact or, knowing, "chose to conceal this fact to deprive the (real owners) of the chance to be notified of the auction sale and redeem it"? Article 19 of the Civil Code says that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith."
5. The law says that the city treasurer may auction a delinquent property (after the owner has been properly notified and he ignores the notification) "if the delinquency covers many years and the tax involved has run into a considerable sum."
But the delinquency did not cover "many years" and did not involve "a considerable sum." The period was less than three years and the amount involved was only P3,102.75.
The owners may have been negligent in not paying the tax promptly, but isn't depriving them of the property too harsh and constitutes an injustice?
6. Another question: City Hall sold only the lot where the house of the Del Rosarios stand because it is the lot that has a tax delinquency. What happens now to the house?
The auction rule and procedures City Hall has prescribed say that the lot and house should be auctioned off one after the other to avert a situation of conflicting ownerships.
The Del Rosarios wrote: "Possibly, the winning bidder made an ocular inspection of our property, saw a house worth millions of pesos on the lot being auctioned and forthwith offered to buy it at P200,000. So on a technicality that we failed to redeem the property within one year (which was due to bureaucratic inefficiency), he is asking the court to take the property from us and give it to him."
Let's face it: City Hall violated due process in selling the Del Rosario lot. Due process is a sacred right guaranteed by our Constitution. Even squatters are given formal notice of eviction. What about the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens like the Del Rosarios? The lot where they live was arbitrarily sold by City Hall without warning and without due process. Can anything be more vile?
posted by Dante at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home