The Supreme Court ruled that the deposit requirement under Section 267 of the Local Government Code (LGC) for actions assailing the validity of a tax sale is not absolute. It applies only when the real property is undisputed to be tax delinquent. If a property owner contests the tax delinquency, they are not automatically required to deposit the sale amount plus interest before the court can hear their case. This decision protects property owners from potentially unfair applications of the deposit rule when they have legitimate disputes over their tax status.

Challenging Tax Sales: When Must a Property Owner Deposit the Disputed Amount?

Beaumont Holdings Corporation (BHC) contested the auction sale of its two properties in Taguig City, arguing that it had already paid the real property taxes. The City Treasurer, however, maintained that the properties were sold due to tax delinquency. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed BHC’s complaint for failing to deposit the amount for which the properties were sold, plus interest, as required by Section 267 of the LGC. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision. The central legal question was whether BHC was required to make this deposit, given its claim that it was not a delinquent taxpayer. This case highlights the balance between ensuring tax collection and protecting property owners’ rights when disputes arise.

The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on interpreting Section 267 of the LGC, which states:

SEC. 267. Action Assailing Validity of Tax Sale. – No court shall entertain any action assailing the validity of any sale at public auction of real property or rights therein under this Title until the taxpayer shall have deposited 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.

The Court emphasized that Section 267 operates specifically within the context of real property taxation. Its purpose is to ensure the collection of delinquent real property taxes. Therefore, the deposit requirement applies only when there is no dispute that the property is indeed tax delinquent. In such cases, the deposit guarantees that the purchaser at the auction sale will be reimbursed if the sale is later declared invalid.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court distinguished this case from previous rulings like National Housing Authority (NHA) v. Iloilo City. In NHA, the property was tax delinquent, and the issue was whether NHA, a tax-exempt entity, was also exempt from the deposit requirement. The Court held that the deposit requirement did not apply to NHA because it was a government agency presumed to be solvent and exempt from real property taxes. Thus, the purpose of the deposit—to ensure tax collection—was not relevant.

This approach contrasts with the situation in BHC’s case. Here, BHC argued that its properties were not tax delinquent because it had paid the taxes within the period specified by Taguig City. The Court noted the potential unfairness of requiring BHC to deposit a substantial amount (approximately P28 million) when the very basis of the auction sale—the tax delinquency—was being contested. This amount was significantly higher than the original tax delinquency, penalties, and costs of sale.

The Court also highlighted the City’s contradictory actions. Taguig City had sent BHC letters stating that it should settle the taxes within November 2007 to avoid penalties. BHC paid within that period. However, the City sold the properties at public auction on November 15, 2007, before the end of the payment period. This raised serious questions about the validity of the auction sale. This suggests potential bad faith on the part of the LGU.

The Supreme Court found that BHC had presented evidence—official receipts—suggesting that it had paid the real property taxes within the prescribed period. If proven true, this would negate the tax delinquency and render Section 267 inapplicable. The Court cited Section 250 of the LGC, which allows taxpayers to pay real property taxes in four installments, with the last installment due on or before December 31. BHC’s payment on November 29, 2007, fell within this period. The Court referenced:

SEC. 250. Payment of Real Properly Taxes in Installments. — The owner of the real property or the person having legal interest therein may pay the basic real property tax and the additional tax for the [Special Education Fund (SEF)] due thereon without interest in four (4) equal installments: the first installment to be due and payable on or before the thirty-first (31^st) of March; the second installment, on or before the thirtieth (30^th) of June; the third installment, on or before the thirtieth (30^th) of September; and the last installment on or before the thirty-first (31^st) of December, except the special levy the payment of which shall be governed by ordinance of the sanggunian concerned.

Given these circumstances, the Court ruled that the RTC and CA had erred in requiring BHC to make the deposit under Section 267. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings to determine whether the properties were indeed tax delinquent. Taguig City was given the opportunity to dispute BHC’s claim of timely payment. This case clarifies that Section 267 does not apply when there’s a genuine dispute about the tax delinquency itself.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Beaumont Holdings Corporation (BHC) was required to deposit the sale amount plus interest under Section 267 of the Local Government Code (LGC) when it contested the tax delinquency leading to the auction sale of its properties.
What is Section 267 of the Local Government Code?	Section 267 of the LGC requires a taxpayer assailing the validity of a tax sale to deposit with the court the amount for which the property was sold, plus interest. This deposit is a prerequisite for the court to entertain the action.
When does the deposit requirement under Section 267 apply?	The deposit requirement applies when the validity of a tax sale is challenged and there is no dispute that the property was tax delinquent. It ensures the reimbursement of the purchaser if the sale is invalidated.
What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled that the deposit requirement does not apply if the property owner contests the tax delinquency itself. In such cases, the court must first determine whether the property was indeed tax delinquent before requiring the deposit.
What evidence did BHC present to support its claim?	BHC presented official receipts showing that it had paid the real property taxes within the period specified by Taguig City. It also presented letters from the City indicating the payment deadline.
Why did the Supreme Court remand the case to the RTC?	The Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC to determine whether the properties were indeed tax delinquent. Taguig City was given the opportunity to dispute BHC’s claim of timely payment.
What is the significance of the NHA v. Iloilo City case?	The NHA case established that the deposit requirement does not apply to government agencies exempt from real property taxes, as the purpose of the deposit—to ensure tax collection—is not relevant in such cases.
What happens if the property is found to be not tax delinquent?	If the property is found to be not tax delinquent, the auction sale would be invalidated, and the deposit requirement under Section 267 would not apply. This protects property owners from wrongful tax sales.

This decision clarifies the scope and application of Section 267 of the LGC, ensuring that it is not used unfairly against property owners who have legitimate disputes over their tax obligations. The ruling balances the need for efficient tax collection with the protection of property rights, requiring a careful examination of the facts before imposing the deposit requirement. Now, property owners contesting a tax sale have a clearer path to challenge the validity of the sale without the immediate burden of a substantial deposit.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Beaumont Holdings Corporation v. Reyes, G.R. No. 207306, August 07, 2017