Cirilo  Punzalan,  the  owner  of  a property  situated  at 120-124  Lopez Jaena,  Paco, Manila, assessed  at P83400, instituted this case on June 29, 1949, in the Court of First Instance of Manila  (Civil Case No.  8358), to annul the sale of said property at public auction made by the Treasurer of the City of Manila in favor of Alfredo S. Ascafla for P18.21, which was the amount of  real  estate taxes in arrears,  and  for  damages.

The record shows  that  the sale was made in accordance with the provisions of Section 2498 of the Revised Administrative  Code;  that  after the  sale  the  City  Treasurer issued the corresponding certificate in  the name of the purchaser  (Exh. 3)  ; that on May 28,  1949, a  final  and absolute deed of  sale was executed by the  same  officer in favor of the  purchaser  in accordance  with the provisions of Sec. 2500  of said  Code; that on May 31, 1948, the City Treasurer  wrote a  letter (Exh.  A)  to Cirilo  Punzalan advising him of the  sale of his property; that  on January 20,  1949, long  before the expiration  of the time granted by  law  for  the  redemption of  said  property,  the  City Treasurer  again  wrote  another  letter  (Exh. B)  to Cirilo Punzalan,  which two letters did not  reach, the  addressee and were returned to the  sender; that  after the expiration of the period of one year, Punzalan came to learn of the sale  of his property because the  buyer  went  to see  it personally; and  that  upon  being  informed  thereof  he took the necessary steps to redeem it  but to no avail.

On these facts the lower court  rendered decision  on November 15,1949, declaring the sale null and void because:

(1)  The "Bagong  Balita  Ng Bayan",  through which the corresponding notice of sale at  public auction was published,  had only a circulation of about twenty thousand copies and could  not  be' considered  as  a newspaper of general circulation in a city like  Manila with more  than half a million inhabitants at the time and more than forty thousand  properties  subject to assessment;
(2)  The buyer Alfredo S. Ascano being at the time of the sale an officer of the Government  of  the Philippine Islands in charge of  the Division of Foreign Fund Control of the  Bureau of Treasury, was  prohibited from making said purchase in accordance with the provision of Section 579  of the  same Code which  reads:

"Sec.  579. Inhibition Against Purchase of Property at a Tax Sale. Officials and employees of the Government of the Phdlippirte Islands are prohibited from 'purchasing, directly or indirectly, from the.  Government, any  property  sold  by the Government  for  the non-payment of any public  lax.  Any such purchase  by a public official shall be void." and

(3)  On  the ground of equity.

From this  decision,  Alfredo  S. Ascano  appealed to the Court of  Appeals, but this tribunal  certified the case  to Us  for the reason that the  only question of fact involved in the  appeal, to wit: "Whether the  newspaper 'Bagong Balita  Ng Bayan' was of  general circulation or not",  is relied by appellant on  the certification issued by the Chief of Inspection Division of the Bureau of Posts, which reads;

"July 15, 1949

"To Whom it May Concern: "This  is  to  certify that, according to the records  of this office, 'Bagong Buhay', a daily publication of general circulation,  was entered  as second-class  mail  matter  in the Manila Post Office  on December  10,  1947, and  that  this  second class  mailing privilege granted  said paper was revoked on  November 1, 1948, due to the discontinuance  of publication  *  * *".

and  on the doctrine laid down  by the Supreme Court  in the case  of Basa vs. Mercado,  61 Phil. 632, which reads:

"The  law does not require that publication  of the notice * * * should be made in the  newspaper with  the largest circulation. * * *

"The  records show that Ing  Kalipunan is a newspaper of  general circulation In view of the fact that it is published for dissemination of local  news and  general information; that it  has a  bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers;  that it is published  at regular  intervals,  and  that the trial court ordered the publication to be made in Ing Katipunan precisely because it was a newspaper of general  circulation  in  the province  of  Pampanga."

This  question  of  fact was not touched  by appellee thus eliminating this point from the  issues  involved  in  the appeal.

In this instance, counsel for appellant makes the following assignments of error:

1. The lower court  erred in declaring  the auction sale, subject of the  main  complaint  as invalid, merely on equity; and  contrary to the  provisions of law involved  and the weight of authority and evidence adduced in the trial;
   
2. The lower court erred in construing the provisions of Section 579 of the Revised Administrative Code; and
   
3. The lower court erred in awarding  some  kind  of  damages in favor of the  plaintiff-appellee.

Though We  are of the  opinion and thus  hold that the "Bagong  Balita Ng Bayan" is  or was a  daily publication of general circulation, We  find that the only questions that need to be  considered in  this appeal are  (1) whether  or not Section 579 of  the Revised  Administrative  Code is applicable to  the instant  case; and  (2)  whether or  not damages  should have been awarded in favor of appellee. On the first point, the trial Judge  said:

"Defendant Alfredo S. Ascano is an employee of the  Government of the Philippine Islands, now Government of  the  Republic of the Philippines.  He  admits  in his answer to the  supplementary complaint, that on May  21, 1948, the date of sale,  he was an employee of said Government.  By expressed provision of  Section 579  of the Revised  Administrative  Code  said   sale  in  his favor  made  by defendant  Treasurer  is  null  and without  value  and  the  Court has no other  alternative than to comply with  the mandate of the law.

"Defendant Ascano alleges that such legal provision is not applicable to him,  because the City of Manila is not the  Government of the Philippine Islands.  This allegation  is devoid of merit because the Government of the City is nothing but a political subdivision of the  Government of the  Philippine Islands, or better said, it  is but a part of said Government  to  which  Section 579  aforementioned  refers to and, consequently, the prohibition contained therein is applicable to the  employees of  the Central  Government  as  well  as to those of the  City of Manila;  it is as  applicable to  the properties levied  by the Government of the City  of  Manila."  (TRANSLATION)

Anent  the damages, appellant does not raise any ques- tion as to the amount fixed by the lower court.   He merely argues that  the awarding of damages in  favor of plaintiff-appellee was  merely on an  illegal presumption  that the auction sale was invalid, and as he contends that the said auction sale was valid and enforceable against the  whole world, hence he concludes that  there  is  no basis in fact or  in  law by  which a Court can  look upon the appellee with equity,  for he  is  guilty  of estoppel  by  his own "laches".   As  to said  damages the trial court  said:

"The Court holds that the damages  alleged by plaintiff have been established  and considers the sum of P500 as sufficient compensation thereof.  Defendant Ascano is the only one liable for these damages because, knowing that he was  prohibited by law to make the purchase  in said  auction,  he  acted  in bad  faith  in  concealing  this fact and  failing to inform the defendant Treasurer of his status as  employee of the Government of the Philippine Islands.  We have no doubt that the Treasurer of  the City of Manila would not have knowingly  sold the  land  in  question in contravention  of the legal provision  aforesaid."  (TRANSLATION)

We certainly agree with the points of view of His Honor on  the two  questions  discussed  above.

Wherefore, the decision appealed  from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant.

It is so ordered.

Paras,  C.  J.,  Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista  Angelo, Labrador,  Conception,  Reyes,  J.  B. L., and Endencia,  J.J.,  concur.