Real Property Tax ISSUE with HOLDING
G.R. No. 212246 (2015) – Gamilla v. Burgundy Realty Corporation 1. W/N the CA erred in taking cognizance of the case – YES
Mendoza, J.
Petitioner Burgundy Realty Corporation was assessed for deficiency real property taxes. It
failed to pay, which led the property to be sold to petitioner Gamilla in an auction sale. BRC
opposed Gamilla’s petition for the issuance of a TCT in her name, arguing that the auction
was null and void because of the absence of a notice of delinquency / notice of levy. The
Court ruled otherwise, holding that respondent received the requisite notices.
DOCTRINE
It is incumbent upon the City Treasurer to convey the notice of delinquency to the taxpayer.
Such notice need not be captioned as “Notice of Delinquency” as long as its contents
sufficiently inform the taxpayer of its deficiencies and the penalty, with a reminder to settle
its obligation immediately.
FACTS
1. Respondent Burgundy Realty Corporation (BRC) owned a condominium located at B.
Gonzales, Loyola Heights, Diliman, Quezon City.
2. In 2005, the City Treasurer of Quezon City assessed respondent for deficiency real
property taxes amounting to over P36M, and demanded that the amount be paid within
10 days from receipt of the notice.
3. Presumably, this was unheeded, which led the City Treasurer to send a Final Notice of
Delinquency several months later, demanding that the balance be paid within 5 days
from receipt of the notice.
4. When still no payment was made, a Warrant of Levy was issued. The Notice of Sale of
Delinquent Real Property was thereafter published in Manila Standard Today for two
consecutive weeks, and once in Manila Bulletin. The Notice, written in English and
Filipino, was also posted for two consecutive weeks at the main entrance of the Quezon
City Hall and in public and conspicuous places and marketplaces in the Barangay
where the subject property was located.
5. The public auction was later held, with petitioner Ofelia Gamilla being declared as the
winner. One year later, the City Treasurer executed the Final Bill of Sale in favor of
Gamilla, who caused its annotation with the RD. Gamilla thus filed a petition for the
cancellation of the CCT under petitioner’s name with the RTC praying for the issuance
of a new CCT.
6. BRC opposed the petition contending that the auction sale failed to comply with the
requirements of the LGC, and prayed that the auction sale be declared null and void.
 Particularly, it argued that there was no notice of levy made on the subject
property and that the statement of delinquency addressed to BRC was not the
notice required by law.
 BRC further denied having received the final notice of delinquency issued by
the City Treasurer.
7. Gamilla countered BRC’s opposition, arguing that BRC’s opposition should not be
entertained for respondent’s failure to deposit of the amount for which the property was
sold, plus interest from the date of sale up to the institution of the action before the
court, as required by Sec. 267 of the LGC.
8. The RTC ordered BRC to comply with the said provision, but it failed to do so. It was
thus declared in default. The Court ruled in favor of Gamilla.
9. The CA reversed the RTC decision, finding that auction sale was tainted with irregularity
as no notice of delinquency and warrant of levy was given to BRC.
 Section 267 of R.A. No. 7160 explicitly provides that a court shall not entertain any
action assailing the validity or sale at public auction of real property unless the
taxpayer deposits with the court the amount for which the real property was sold,
together with interest of two percent (2%) per month from the date of sale to the
time of the institution of the action.
 This condition is a jurisdictional requirement, the nonpayment of which warrants
the dismissal of the action. Considering that BRC did not make such deposit, the
RTC should not have acted on the opposition of BRC.
2. W/N there were irregularities in the auction sale – NO
 It is incumbent upon the City Treasurer to convey the notice of delinquency to the
taxpayer. The strict adherence to the notice requirement in tax sales is imperative
not only for the protection of the taxpayers, but also to allay any possible suspicion
of collusion between the buyer and the public officials called upon to enforce such
laws.
 In the present case, a perusal of the records would show that BRC was notified of
its tax delinquency and of the proceedings relative to the auction sale.
 The records bear out that the statement of delinquency was sent to BRC stating
that the realty tax on the subject property had not been paid from years 1997 to
2004 and including the computation of the amount of the taxes due and penalties.
 BRC acknowledged its receipt of this statement of delinquency, but argued that
this was not the notice contemplated by law.
o However, the Court ruled that though the statement of delinquency was
not captioned as "Notice of Delinquency," its contents nonetheless
sufficiently informed BRC of its deficiency in real property taxes and the
penalty with a reminder to settle its tax obligation immediately in order to
avoid legal inconvenience.
o Furthermore, a Final Notice of Delinquency was later sent, again
reminding the respondent of its unpaid taxes. The Warrant of Levy was
also sent. Both of these were received by the respondent.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The November 26, 2012 Decision and the April
22, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95594 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The June 23, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 221, Quezon
City in LRC Case No. Q-23701(07) is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.