This is an appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dated August 11, 1956, ordering the Register of Deeds  for the City of Manila to cancel the original  of Transfer Certificate of  Title No.  4178  and to deliver a  new  title to petitioner or her authorized representative, upon payment of proper registration fees, and  from the order  dated  October 17, 1956,  denying oppositor-appellant's motion for reconsideration.

This case was first elevated  to the Court  of  Appeals; but in view of its finding that only questions  of  law were involved,  it certified it to this  Tribunal  for further proceedings by virtue of resolution dated July 24,  1957.

The case was  submitted for decision  on  a stipulation of facts and on the pleadings of the  parties.  Said facts as far as they are  pertinent to the case may be narrated as follows:

The parcel  of land, subject matter  of the  case  and later referred to as the  lot, is  lot  No. 18-A-8,  Block No. 2814, with an area of 95.80 square meters, located at Bambang,  Int., Tondo, Manila, under Assessment  No. 1068.  It was declared  for taxation purposes  in the name of Florencia 0. Capote.  However, the registered owner before the year  1941  was one Eusebio  Valdez Tan Kee under Transfer Certificate of Title No.  56636.   He conveyed the lot  on October 31, 1941 under  Transfer Certificate of Title No. 63121 to Hermogenes Pineda, who later transferred it to Dr. Andres Torres on December 20, 1946 under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4178.

On December  29,  1947, for tax  delinquency for  the years 1945-1947, the  City  Treasurer  of Manila, after the corresponding publication,  sold the  lot to  Mena de Lara as the highest bidder, for the sum of P18.13.  After more than one year, that is, on  May 18, 1949, the City Treasurer issued a certificate of sale in her favor.   The certificate  of  sale,  however,  was  never presented for registration in the office of the register of deeds of Manila, nor any  memorandum  thereof  made  on  the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No.  4178.

It should be stated in this connection that at the time of the tax sale made by the City Treasurer on December 29, 1947,  the lot in question was registered in the office of  the City Treasurer for tax purposes in the name of Florencia O. Capote  and was registered in the office of the register of deeds in the name  of  Andres Torres.

In the meantime, on December 20, 1946, Andres  Torres. the registered  owner, executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favor of Hermogenes Pineda, the same person who sold  him the same lot on the same date, December 20, 1946.  Said power  of  attorney covered  the   lot in question as well as another  parcel, Lot No. 18-A-7.  The power of attorney was  in  consideration  of the sum of P15,000.

On February 25, 1956, Andres Torres  "in  consideration of P1.00 and other valuable consideration, plus the consideration  mentioned in the  Irrevocable  Power of Attorney  executed by  me  dated December  20,  1946". executed a deed of conveyance of the  same lot 18-A-8, in favor of Hermogenes  Pineda and Mrs. Amalia Serrano, said to be  husband and  wife.  At that time the lot  was assessed at P770 as per  Tax Assessment No.  1195.   The deed of conveyance stated that the total consideration of the transfer should be considered as P7,500 (1/2 of P15,000 mentioned  in the  Irrevocable Power of Attorney) plus P1.00 or P7,501.  It would appear that Hermogenes  Pineda was then already dead because Mrs.  Amalia Serrano, one of the transferees, called herself  a widow  and appointed administratrix of the estate of the late Hermogenes Pineda in Special Proceedings No. 1078,  Court of  First Instance of Pampanga, and that  she was  accepting the deed of conveyance for herself and for the estate of Hermogenes Pineda.

However, the deed of conveyance  presented with the office  of  the register of deeds of  Manila could  not  be registered then because the owner's copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title could  not be presented  and  so an adverse claim was caused to  be registered in said office on March 16, 1956.  Up to the time  of the presentation of the stipulation of facts,  the lot in question was still covered by Transfer  Certificate  of Title No. 4178,  in the name of Andres Torres.

On February 22, 1956, Mrs. Serrano inquired from the register of deeds about any incumbrance or claim  on the said lot and  the register of deeds  issued  a certificate stating that the tax  sale in favor of  Mena de Lara had not been presented in  his office for registration.   On the same date, February 22,  1956, Mrs. Serrano was allowed by the City Treasurer to redeem  the  property in connection with the tax sale,  by paying  the sum of P20.85. She likewise paid to the Treasurer the land taxes for the years 1949-1955 in the sum of P85.33.  On  June 9, 1956, Mrs. Serrano also  paid the City  Treasurer  the tax corresponding to the year 1956,  in the sum of  P11.55.

On  February 1, 1956, the  purchaser  at  the tax  sale, Mena  de Lara sold the lot to Florentine J. Teehico, the petitioner, for the sum of P1,500.  The conveyance was duly registered  in  the office of the register of deeds in the City of Manila on  February 24, 1956.   In connection with this sale and  the registration in the office  of the register  of deeds,  the stipulation  of facts contain  the following:

"*  *  *.  As reflected  from the documentary exhibit  attached to the  records we  submit that the petitioner is  a purchaser in good faith, not direct from the City Treasurer but from  a  third party who acquired  the  same property by virtue  of an  auction sale  conducted in accordance with law."

On the basis of the deed  of sale made in  her favor, petitioner Teehico, on March 12, 1956, filed  a petition with the  trial court asking that  Transfer  Certificate of Title No.  4178-T295  in the register of deeds  for  the City  of Manila  covering  the lot  be ordered cancelled and  a  new certificate of  title be issued  in her  name upon previous payment of the  corresponding fees.   The petition was  opposed  by Mrs. Amalia  Serrano  for her self  and on behalf of the estate of  Hermogenes Pineda. After hearing, as already stated, the trial court granted the  petition.   The reason given  by  the  trial  court in support of its order granting  the petition is that after the  execution of the  final  deed  of  sale by  the  City Treasurer which  was  more  than one year  after the tax sale  was made on December 29,  1947, all rights to redeem the property have become unenforceable.

"* * *  The contention of the  oppositor  that  the certificate of sale  was not registered  and for that reason the  one  year period did not  commence to run holds true, following the  case of Metropolitan Water  District vs. Reyes,  74  Phil., 142-150, cited by  the  counsel  for  the oppositor and  the  case  of Tolentino vs. Agcaoili,  6.  ft. Nos. L-4349, 4350  and 4351. But  this doctrine in these  two cases seems  to  have been abandoned in the case of Paguio vs. Rosado, 93 Phil., 306. * * *"

The  trial court added:

"Considering that  the case of Paguio  vs. Rosado  and the case at bar are substantially the same; that the taxes  for the property in question  for the  years  1948-1955 are immaterial  to the case at bar; that the deed of sale of Mena  vs. de Lara in favor of the herein petitioner was  executed on February 1, 1956, and presented for registration  on February 24, 1956, and that the deed of sale  executed by  Dr. Andres Torres  in favor  of Hermogenes Pineda and Mrs. Amalia Serrano was made only  on February 25, 1956,  the opposition  is hereby denied."

In  view  of our  decision in the case of Leon C. Santos vs. Rehabilitation Finance  Corporation, 101  Phil.,  980, we  deem an extended  discussion  of the  case  unnecessary.  In said case which  is  very  similar to  the  one before   us,  involving the same  question  of  when  the one   year  period of  redemption commences  to   run, reiterating the ruling laid down  in the cases of Metropolitan Water District vs. Aurelio  Reyes,  74 Phi., 143, and Tolentino vs.  Agcaoili, G. R. Nos. L-4349-4351, May 28, 1952, we  held that the period  of redemption commences to run  not from the date of the auction  of  tax sale but  from  the day  the  sale  was  registered  in  the office  of the Register of Deeds.   In   said  case  we expressly said  that the  cases of Valbuena and  Paguio were not applicable because  they  did not involve  the  question of  when the period  of  redemption  starts to  run.   We quote  the pertinent portion of said decision:

"Petitioner-appellant contends that the Metropolitan Water District case as well  as the  case  of  Marina V.  Toientino  vs. Romarico Agcaoili,  G.  R. Nos.  L-4349-51,  cited by  the trial court,  are not applicable; that what  are  controlling are  those of Mercedes Valbuena  et  al.  vs. Aurelio  Reyes  et al., G. R.  No. 48177, September 30,  1949, and  Lourdes T.  Paguio vs. Maria  Rosado de Ruiz, 93 Phil., 306.  We disagree.  In the two cases  of Valbuena and Paguio the only  question involved therein was the validity of the tax sale made by  the City Treasurer of Manila  for tax delinquency. There  we  held that it was not necessary  for the  City Treasurer to  give personal notice of  the tax  sale  and that publication .of the  notice of  the sale was  sufficient. The question  of the period of redemption and when  it should begin to run was  not discussed. On the other hand, we agree  with  the  trial court  that the case of Metropolitan Water District and Tolentino are applicable. In the Tolentino case, which also involved the  non-registration of  the certificate of sale, this Court went further and  extended the doctrine laid down in the Metropolitan Water  District case by saying, after citing Section  77 of Act No. 496,  the following:

From the  above quoted  provision it appears  that whenever a registered land is  sold on execution,  or taken  or  sold for taxes, or for any assessment to  enforce a lien of any character, it is required that the officer's  return,  or the  certificate, or affidavit,  or other instrument made in the course of the proceedings which are required by law  to be recorded, be filed with  the register of deeds for  the province where the land lies, be registered in  the  registry book  and a  memorandum thereof  be made upon  the   proper certificate of title. This  provision  does not require  that  the document, to  be registrable, be  notarized. In fact it expressly permits an officer's return,  or a certificate, or other instrument made in the course of the proceedings to be  filed for registration.  Of course, in effecting the registration the register of  deeds does not have to issue a new certificate of title  to the  purchaser;  it is enough that he makes  a memorandum entry on the corresponding certificate of title to afford constructive notice to all the world.  This is necessary in order that the registered owner may be apprised of the annotation of the encumbrance and may take the necessary steps to his interest.  He may choose either to abandon his property or redeem it within the period provided for by law.  This requirement is  fundamental because it is one of the safeguards that the law establishes in order that owners of land who  may have failed to take note of the sale of their  properties  for delinquency in the payment of  taxes may be notified of the action  taken in connection with their properties. The failure of petitioner to take this step  vitiates fundamentally her petition.

"In those two  cases, specifically in the Tolentino case, we held that the period of  redemption of one year  should start from  the date  of  the  registration  of the certificate of  sale or the final deed  of  sale  in  favor of the purchaser, so  that the delinquent registered  owners or third  parties interested in the redemption may know that  the delinquent property had  been sold, and  that they  had one year from said constructive  notice of the sale by means of  registration within which  to redeem  the property, if they wished to do so.

"In further support of  this doctrine of the necessity of registering auction sales, we have  the case of  Philippine Executive Commission vs. Abadilla, 74  Phil. 68, wherein this Court held that as regards registered land  sold at  public  auction in execution of a judgment,  the registered owners may  redeem  the land  so  sold within one year,  not  from  the date of the auction sale of which they had  no notice, but  from the  date the sale was registered." Leon C.  Santos  vs.  Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, supra.

It is  therefore clear that  in the  present case the one year period  of  redemption commenced  to run on  February 24, 1956 when petitioner Teehico registered the conveyance in  her  favor by  Mena de Lara in  the  office  of  the register  of deeds.   It cannot be the date  of  registration of  the tax  sale  for the reason  that, as already  stated, said  tax sale or  rather  the certificate issued by the  City Treasurer to Mena de Lara was never presented  at the office  of  the register  of deeds for registration.   It is equally  clear that inasmuch  as Serrano redeemed the  lot on February  22 or  24,  1956, the  redemption was made well  within the period  provided by law.  In this connection, it should  be stated that the sale made by Mrs, Mena de  Lara  to  petitioner Techico was naturally subject  to this right of  redemption.  Consequently, as  a result of  said redemption,  petitioner  lost all right  and title  which her vendor may have tried to convey  to her. In other words, her petition  before the  trial court was without any right  or basis, and so the trial  court erred in granting the same.

In  view  of the  foregoing, the order appealed from  is reversed, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,  and Endencia, JJ., concur.