SPOUSES ANTONIO VIZARRA and BRENDA LOGATOC VIZARRA, TOMAS VIZARRA, JESUS PASTORAL, and MIGUEL RICAFRANCA, Petitioners

s! CONC"ITA R! RODRIGUEZ and EVEL#N R! RODRIGUEZ, Res$ondents! G!R! No! %&'(%&! De)e*+er ,, -((. Fa)ts/ Manuel Vizarra filed a complaint before the CFI against Conchita for recovery of possession of real property, claiming that he was the owner of an unregistered parcel of land in Marinduque. e further asserted he and !tty. Clemente "odriguez #Conchita$s late husband% entered into a bilateral written agreement allowing the latter to enter the land for purposes of locating mineral deposits therein. &hen !tty. "odriguez died, his widow illicitly retained possession of the land and appropriated the fruits of the fruit'bearing trees. In answer, Conchita asserted ownership over the (),*** sqm. property covered by a +a, -eclaration under the name of her deceased father, Vicente "osales. .he added that Manuel had ceased to be the lawful owner of most of the land when he voluntarily subdivided the land between him and his seven children. In /012, Manuel caused the consolidation of the eight ta, declarations of the Vizarras into a single ta, declaration in his name. +en years after, CFI declared Conchita as the true owner of the disputed land. ! writ of e,ecution was issued ordering petitioners to refrain from entering the disputed property. +hereafter, Manuel died and was substituted by his heirs. In /034, Conchita and her daughter 5velyn filed an action for in6unction and damages, alleging that petitioners, along with 7* others, repeatedly entered the sub6ect properties, harvested coconuts to be processed into copra and appropriate the fruits to themselves. 8etitioners, on the other hand, narrated that the sub6ect properties were actually purchased by petitioner spouses !ntonio and 9renda Vizarra from the provincial government of Marinduque in a public auction sale conducted on 74 !pril /0)0, which became final one year after. Interestingly, the auction sale resulted from the failure of Manuel to pay the real property ta,es, even though the CFI had ruled that it was Conchita "odriguez who had actually owned one of the sub6ect properties. /n /00/, "+C rendered a decision finding that the parcels of land in dispute were owned by Conchita. +he Court of !ppeals affirmed in toto the 6udgment of the "+C. Iss0e/ Is the auction sale valid: "e1d/ 8arenthetically, 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

ta,es, he violated .ection )2 of 8residential -ecree <o. 414, otherwise =nown as the "eal 8roperty +a, 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 ta,payer, at his address shown on the ta, record cards or at his residence. +he auction sale, therefore, was null and void for non'compliance with the provisions of the "eal 8roperty +a, Code on mandatory notice. &e disagree, however, with the pronouncement of the "+C and the Court of !ppeals that petitioners had the obligation to convey the notice of delinquency to respondents. "ather, the responsibility lies with the provincial assessor$s office to furnish copies of the notices to the parties concerned. +hus, the provincial assessor should have given a copy of the two #7% notices of delinquency sale to Conchita. !bsent any ample evidence that the provincial assessor did so and that he observed the requisites set out in .ection )2 of 8residential -ecree <o. 414, the auction sale of the disputed parcels of land is truly null and void for non'observance of the statutory requirement of the "eal 8roperty +a, Code. +he decision of the Court of !ppeals is affirmed with modification.