[63] RESTITUTA VDA. DE GORDON vs.
CA & ROSARIO DUAZO a) The purchase price of P10,500 is about 1⁄6 of the total assessed value of the
Adequacy of Price | November 23, 1981 | Teehankee, J. parcels of land and the residential house thereon. Thus, it cannot be said that
said price is so inadequate as to be shocking to the conscience of the court.
SUMMARY: QC Treasurer sold Gordon’s 2 parcels of land and the residential house ● Cf. Director of Lands vs. Abarca where the Court considered the price of
thereon at a public sale when the latter failed to pay real property taxes for the past 10 P877.25 as so inadequate to shock the conscience of the court because the
years. Duazo bought the same for P10,500, which is about 1⁄6 of the total assessed assessed value of the property, which was P60,000, was more than 60 times
value. When Duazo sought to consolidate her ownership over said properties at the the price paid at the auction sale.
lapse of redemption period, Gordon opposed alleging, among others, that the purchase
price paid during the public sale was grossly inadequate. Both CA and SC ruled for b) While in ordinary sales, for reasons of equity, a transaction may be invalidated on
Duazo. the ground of inadequacy of price, or when such inadequacy shocks one's conscience
as to justify the courts to interfere, such does not follow when the law gives to the
DOCTRINE: Gross inadequacy of price is not material when the law gives the owner the owner the right to redeem, as when a sale is made at public auction, upon the theory
right to redeem the property sold at the auction sale on the theory that the lesser the that the lesser the price the easier it is for the owner to effect the redemption.
price, the easier it is for the owner to effect the redemption.
c) When there is the right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not be material,
FACTS: because the judgment debtor may reacquire the property or also sell his right to redeem
● Petitioner 80-year-old Restituta Vda. de Gordon owned 2 parcels of land in and thus recover the loss he claims to have suffered by reason of the price obtained at
Quezon City with an assessed value of P16,800, while the residential house the auction sale.
thereon is assessed at P45,580.
● From 1953 to 1963, taxes against said parcels of land remained unpaid. Thus, OTHER ISSUE & RATIO:
QC Treasurer held a public sale to satisfy the taxes. W/N Gordon is entitled to redeem said parcels of land -
● On Dec 3, 1964, the properties were sold to Respondent Duazo for P10,500 NO
representing the tax, penalty and costs.
● When Gordon failed to redeem said parcels of land within the 1-year period
PETITIONER GORDON: She can still CA: Judicial confirmation is needed in
prescribed by law, QC Treasurer executed on January 4, 1966 a final deed of
redeem the two parcels of land because foreclosure of mortgage sale, but not in
sale of said lands and the improvements thereon in favor of Duazo.
the public sale has not been judicially public sale which is governed by
● Gordon now opposes Duazo’s petition for consolidation of ownership, which
confirmed. Commonwealth Act #470 Sec. 40 which
CA dismissed. Hence this petition.
gives the delinquent taxpayer a period of
1 year from the date of sale within which
PERTINENT ISSUE & RATIO:
to repurchase the property sold.
W/N the price is so grossly inadequate as to justify the
Otherwise, it becomes a mandatory duty
setting aside of the public sale - NO
of the provincial treasurer to issue in
favor of purchaser a final deed of sale.
PETITIONER GORDON: Purchase price of CA: Purchase price of P10,500 is about
P10,500 paid by Duazo is grossly 1⁄6 of the total assessed value, which is
inadequate considering that the not so inadequate as to be shocking to
combined assessed value of the 2 the conscience of the court.
parcels of land and the residential house
thereon is P62,380.
a) The specific law governing tax sales of properties in QC is Commonwealth Act #502
(QC Charter) which provides in Section 31 thereof for a 1-year redemption period. The
special law covering QC necessarily prevails over the general law.
b) Neither had Gordon sought to exercise her alleged right of redemption or make an
actual tender thereof for a period of 10 years since Duazo filed her brief. In fact, it was
Duazo who has been paying the realty taxes since 1964.
RULING: CA’s decision, affirmed. Without costs.
