This  is  an  appeal from  a judgment of  the  Court or First Instance  of Manila dismissing  the  plaintiffs  complaint  (civil No. 27852).  The facts are not disputed, the appellant having signified his intention to raise  questions of law principally and questions  of fact incidentally.   In his brief, the appellant does not  question the  findings of fact of the trial court.

This case  involves the ownership  of a parcel of land and the improvements existing thereon consisting of a two-story  building of strong  materials situated at  Nos. 601 & 603  Isabel (Corner F. Jocson Streets,  Sampaloc,  Manila, and more particularly described as follows:

"PARCELA  DE TEBRENO No. 14 Manzana No.  124 de  la  Subdivision de Solucan, con la casa de dos plantas de materiales fuertes,. sefialada con los Nos. 803 al 307 de la Calle Isabel.  Linda por el SE, con la Calle Feliciano Jocson; por el SW, con la parcela 28r por el NW,  con la parcela 13;  y por  el NE,  con. la  Calle Isabel,. conteniendo Una extension superficial de CIENTO OCHIENTA Y SIETE: METROS CUADRADOS CON CINCUENTA DICIMETROS (187.50).

At  the  trial,  the attorneys for  both parties entered into the following partial stipulation of facts:

"1. That  they  agree  on the identity, location  and description of the property in question as described in Par.  3 of the complaint and that they likewise agree on the identity of the parties, plaintiff and defendants;

"2. That the plaintiff paid to the City Treasurer  of  Manila the sum of P611.80 on April 2, 1949, under Official Receipt No. 63220-V certified copy  of  which receipt is  hereto attached  as Annex  'A'; the  sum  of P850.00 on January  3,  1950,   as per  official  receipt No.  380415-V, hereto  attached as  Annex 'A-1'; and the  sum of P368.49 on May 4, 1950, as per official receipt «No. 528339-V, hereto attached as Annex 'A-2';

"3. That the property in question is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title  No.  63708,  issued  in  the  name   of  Marcelina  David, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, from whom the latter inherited said property,  which Transfer  Certificate  of  Title  is in the possession  of the defendants; and

"4. That  all other facts not covered by this stipulation of facts shall be covered by evidence which the parties may  wish to  adduce in court."

It  appears that the same  parcel  of land  and its improvements were the subject-matter of the litigation  in  Civil Case  No.  948 of this  Court between Julian M. Manansala  and Marcelina  David, predecessor-in-interest of the herein defendants, in which said plaintiff;  sought to annul two  documents,  the one a deed of sale  and conveyance of  said property and the other, a contract of lease and option to repurchase the same property, on the ground that  they did not express  the true  agreement  of  the parties. During  the pendency of said action, Marcelina  David died  and she, was  substituted by the herein defendants  as  her heirs. In (a) decision rendered  by this Court on  March  7, 1950, the defendants were absolved from the complaint and the plaintiff was ordered to vacate said property and to pay the former the sum of  P96.00 a month as rant  therefor,  beginning September 24, 1941, until the premises were surrendered to the defendants by the plaintiff.  This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on April  26,  1955.^[1]

It further appears that during  the pendency of said civil case No. 948, in this Court and in the Court of Appeals, the land taxes for said property corresponding to the years 1945,  1946, 1947, and 1948,  inclusive,  were not  paid,  because of which, it was among those  that were  advertised  in the  Bagong Balita in its issues of March 2, 9 and  16, 1948, which were to be sold at public auction on April 2, 1948. However,  at the public auction held on the date aforesaid, there was no bidder for said property.

On  September 14, 1948,  the plaintiff Julian M.  Manansala; as the declared owner  of  said property in the tax  rolls in the  office of the City Treasurer  of Manila,  was  notified by  the latter that the same  was forfeited  to  the City  in the  public  auction  sale conducted by him on April  2, 1948, and informed him that he had one year  from  the  date of  sale  within which to  redeem said property.  On April 2,  1949, or before  the expiration of said one year,  plaintiff Julian  M. Manansala  entered into a  compromise agreement (Exhibit "C") with the City Treasurer of the City of Manila, as follows:

"I  hereby acknowledge  to be  indebted to  the  City Treasurer of  Manila  for  real  estate  taxes  and  other  charges due  on my property at 405  Isabel and F. Jocson, Sampaloc, which was forfeited at the  tax sale  conducted by the office of the City Treasurer on April 2,  1948, in  the  total  amount  of P1,424.25,  which I hereby promise to settle in the following manner:

"The  amount  of P611.80  to be  paid at  this writing  and the balance of P812.45, 30  days  hereafter.

"I  hereby further agree  that should I  fail to pay the amount of P812.45  on or before the time limit given the City Treasurer is given full authority to confiscate the said  property and to take such  action as he may deem necessary on the premise."

On the same  date, plaintiff paid to the  City Treasurer  the sum of P611.80 under Official Receipt No.  63220-V.

It  seems, however, that the plaintiff failed to comply with said compromise agreement because on August 3, 1959, the City Treasurer invited his attention to his letter of May 10,  1949,  arid to  the compromise agreement  signed by him of April  2, 1949, in connection with  the payment of the balance of P812.45 which he promised  to pay within 30 days from April 2, 1949, otherwise the City Treasurer would "proceed with the confiscation of the property in accordance with  the provisions of  the Revised Charter, of the  City of Manila" (Exhibit "I").   On September 21, 1949, another demand was made upon the  plaintiff by  the  City Treasurer, who  gave him 10 days from his  receipt of the letter  within which to pay said balance "in order to  avoid  the outright confiscation of the property".  On January 3, 1950, plaintiff paid to the City Treasurer the sum  of P850.00 under Official Receipt  No. 380415-V, and on May 4, 1960, he paid the balance of P368.49 under Official Receipt No. 528339-V. Upon his payment of the last amount, the City  Treasurer issued in his  favor a certificate  of repurchase (Exhibit "A") which reads as follows:

"This  is  to  certify that  the land  and  improvements located at No. 405 Isabel and 251 F.  Jocson (Lot 14, Block 124),  forfeited to the  City of Manila,  at the  public sale conducted by the undersigned, on April-2, 1948, has  been repurchased by  Mr. Julian M. Manansala.

"The amount of P1,828.49 representing taxes, penalties and  costs, including  interest,  was paid  under Official  Receipts Nos.  63220, 380415 and  528339,  dated April 4, 1949, January  3,  1950, and May 4, 1950, respectively."

Plaintiff now alleges in his  complaint that  by virtue  of  said Exhibit "A", he  "acquired and  became the absolute legal owner" of said property.  He  proceeds upon  the theory that when the property in question was  advertised for sale  at public  auction for tax delinquency on April 2, 1949,  and there  was no bidder for  it at said auction, said property  was forfeited to the City of  Manila; and that  when  the  defendants and  their  predecessor-in-interest failed to exercise their right of  redemption within the  period prescribed by law, said forfeiture was  rendered absolute and property passed to the ownership of the City of Manila.

Section  72,  Republic Act  No. 409,  provides:

In case there is no bidder at the  public sale of such realty who offers a sum sufficient to pay  the  taxes, penalties, and costs, the city assessor  and  collector shall declare the real estate forfeited to the city, and shall make, within two days thereafter, a return of his proceedings and the forfeiture, which shall be spread  upon the records of his office.⁽¹⁾

Section 73  of the same Act  provides:

Within one year from the date of such forfeiture thus declared the taxpayer, or anyone for him, may redeem  said realty as above provided in cases where the same is sold.  But,  if the realty is not  thus redeemed  within the  year,  the forfeiture  shall  become absolute and the city treasurer shall execute a deed, similar  in  form as haying the same effect  as the deed required to be made  by him in case of a sale, conveying the real estate to the city.  The  deed shall be recorded as  required  by law  or other real estate  titles and shall then  be forwarded to the mayor for notation  and return to the city treasurer who shall file the same and enter it in his records of property.^[2]

As found by the trial court,  the  property in, question was declared in the name of the appellant for purposes of taxation.  During the pendency of the case  between him and the appellees' predecessor-in-interest, the realty  tax due on the property for the years  1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 were  not paid and for  that reason  the same  was advertised for sale  at public auction on 2 April 1948 in the Bagong Balita.  As there was no bidder  at the public sale, it was declared forfeited to the City of Manila.   On 14 September 1948 the appellant  was  notified of  that fact by the City Treasurer of  Manila and  that  he had one year from the date of forfeiture within  which to redeem the property.  On 2 April 1949 the appellant entered into a  compromise agreement with the  City Treasurer for the redemption of the property.  After several extensions of time within which to pay the amounts due,  the appellant finally made good his promise and  undertaking. On 9 May 1950  the City Treasurer  issued a "Certificate of Repurchase" in favor  of the  appellant.  The appellant did not purchase the property at the  public sale conducted on 2 April 1948, for nobody  bid for  it, but within one year from date of  forfeiture  he, as declared owner,  redeemed the property to prevent the loss of whatever right he might have in  it, which  was then  under  litigation between him and the appellees' predecessor-in-interest.   As correctly held by the trial court Exhibit A is not the tax deed mentioned in section 71 of Republic Act No. 409, which  must  be "inform  and effect sufficient to convey to the purchaser so much of the real estate against which the taxes have been assessed  as  has  been sold, free from all liens of  any kind whatsoever, and the deed shall succinctly recite all  the proceedings upon  which the validity of the sale depends." The tax deed contemplated in section 71 is that issued to a third person who buys the property at the public sale after the owner or anybody in his behalf  has failed to  redeem it  within one year from the date  of sale.  To sustain the appellant's contention would in effect nullify the final judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals holding that the appellee's prerecessors-in-interest was the owner of the property in question and the judgment of this Court in G. R. No. L-10223 on 29 August 1957 upholding the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The appellant contends  that the appellees cannot assail the validity of the tax sale in his  favor because they did not comply with the provisions of  section 77, Republic Act No. 409,  by paying into court the amount for which the real estate was  sold together with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of sale to the time of the filing of the action.  That section applies only when it is the owner of the land himself who assails the validity of the tax sale recover the property sold to a third person or forfeited to the City of Manila and  not when, as in the case at bar, the property has not been lost or sold to a third person but redeemed by another in behalf of the true  owner and the  redemptioner claims ownership  over it  by virtue of his redemption.

However, considering that by redeeming the property in question from the City of Manila  the appellant had prevented its loss to the prejudice  of  the  appellees, he should be reimbursed by the appellees  for whatever amount he had paid to the City of Manila for its redemption, with lawful interest from the time of payment to the  City of Manila to the date  of reimbursement to the appellant.

With the foregoing modification, the judgment appealed from  is affirmed, without pronouncement as  to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and  Barrera, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo,  J.,  concurs  in  the  result.

---

^[1] On 24 June 1955 the Supreme Court denied Manansala's petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals (G. R. No. L-9179).  In G. R. No. L-10223, he sought to stop the execution of the judgment by filing a petition for certiorari and praying for a writ of preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court.  On 29 August 1957  this Court denied  his petition and dissolved the writ  it had issued.

⁽¹⁾ The same as section 2501 Revised Administrative Code.

^[2] The same as section 2502 same code.