In and prior to the year 1947, Lot No. 12-f, Block 2255, of the  San Lazaro Estate, located at 450 Malabon Street corner  Felix Huertas Street, Manila, with an area of 131 square  meters, together  with the building  and  other improvements thereon, had  been declared for taxation purposes under  Assessment  No. 1784  of the Office  of the Manila City Assessor, in the names of  Juana de la Cruz, Francisco de la Cruz, and Eustaquia B. Vda. de la Cruz, in the amount of P12,770.00.  "The same property was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.  12185 of the land records of Manila, in the names only of Juana de la  Cruz and  Francisco de  la Cruz.  On  September 26, 1948, the same  property was  mortgaged  to  the  Rehabilitation Finance Corporation  (R. F.  C),  for P16.500.00 the mortgage contract  being  annotated on the back  of  Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12185. For delinquency in the real estate taxes for the years 1948 and 1949, the said property was advertised for sale  at  public  auction in  the name of Eustaquia B. Vda. De la  Cruz, the advertisement having been duly published  in the Philippines Herald  of September 28,  October 5  and 12,  1949, and copies of the notice  of sale  posted at the  City Hall  of  Manila.

Pursuant to the notice  of  sale, the property  was sold at public auction  by the  City Treasurer  on October 29, 1949 and was awarded  to petitioner  Leon C.  Santos as the highest bidder, for the sum of P509.20.   On September 9, 1950, the City Treasurer issued  a certificate  of sale in favor of  Santos,  which certificate, however, was  never presented for registration  at the   Office  of  the Manila Register of Deeds, neither has any memorandum thereof been made  on the back of Transfer  Certificate of Title No. 12185.  On  August 26, 1950, the City Treasurer  addressed  a notice  to Juana and Francisco that the property covered by  Transfer Certificate of Title  No.  12185 had been sold at public auction on October  29, 1949, and that they had one year from said date within which  to redeem the property,  the last day being  October  29, 1950.  On June 20,  1951,  Juana and Francisco deposited the sum of P1,014.65 with the City  Treasurer "for payment  of real estate taxes  for the years  1948 to 1951  on the property described in and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12185."

On  November 12,  1951, the  City Treasurer  executed and issued a deed of sale  on  the same property in  favor of Santos.  Said deed was registered  and annotated  on the back  of Transfer Certificate of Title  No.  12185  on February 15, 1952.  In the meantime, the mortgage debt of P16,500.00 to  the R.F.C. remained unpaid and appeared as outstanding in the books  of said R.F.C. at P16,925.58 as of October 29, 1949.  However,  Juana  and  Francisco would appear to have made payments on  account,  reducing the  same indebtedness to P9,822.18 as of  February 8, 1955.

The present action had  its origin in the petition filed by  Santos  in the Court  of First  Instance of Manila on October 16, 1954, asking the court to direct the Register of Deeds to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No.  12185 and  to  issue  in  lieu thereof a.  new certificate in  his (Santos)  name.   The petition was  opposed not only  by Juana and Francisco but also by the ,R.  F. C.  The parties filed a  stipulation of facts   and  after  a  short hearing wherein  some evidence  was  submitted,  the trial  court by its order of June 13, 1955, denied the petition.  Santos is now appealing said order of denial, attributing to the trial  court the  following errors:

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
"(1) The  lower  court  erred  in concluding that the  decision,  in the case of Metropolitan  Water  District us. Aurelio Reyes, 74 Phil. 143,. is decisive of the case at bar.
"(2) Tile  lower court  erred in declaring that the deposit  of P1,014.65  made by oppositors Juana de la Cruz and Francisco de la Crua on June 20,  1951,  constitute legal exercise, of their  rights  of redemption.
"(3) The lower court erred in  declaring that the cases 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,  O.  R. No. L-5301,  May 10, 1953, are not applicable to the case at bar.
"(4) The  lower court finally erred in denying  the petition."

The trial court citing  the  case of  Metropolitan Water District vs. Aurelio Reyes,  74 Phil. 143,  based  its denial of  the  petition  mainly  on the  ground  that  petitioner Santos failed to register in the Office  of the  Register of  Deeds  the certificate of  sale  issued  to  him,  dated September 9,  1950;  that  consequently,  the  running   of the  period of  one year for purposes of  redemption did not and  could not start from the  date of the  sale; that said  period of  redemption  should  start  either from the date  when the  registered  owners  of the property  were actually  notified of the  sale, on  August  26,  1950,  or  on February 15,  1952, when the final deed of sale was registered, and that  in   either case  the  registered owners should be regarded as having made the redemption within the period of one  year, because they  bad  deposited  in the Office  of the City Treasurer  on June 20,  1951 the sum  of  P1,014.65.  We reproduce the  pertinent portion of the decision, as follows:

"After a careful study of the issue involved and the pleadings of all the parties, this court has come to the conclusion that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Metropolitan Water District vs. Aurelio Reyes, 74 Phil, 143, is decisive of the case at bar.  In that decision it was held that:

"It is not necessary  to  register a  tax lien because it is automatically registered,  once the tax accrues, by virtue of Section 39 of Act  No. 496.  But there is no provision  of  law  to  the effect that the sale of  registered land  to foreclose a tax lien  need not be registered.  On the contrary,  section 77 of said  Act specifically provides (in so far as it is pertinent here) that whenever registered land is sold for taxes or for  any assessment, any  officer's  return or any  deed,  demand,  certificate,  or  affidavit  or  any  other  instrument made in  the course of  proceedings to enforce such liens  shall be  filed with  the register  of deeds  for  the province where the land  lies  and registered  in  the  registration book, and  a  memorandum made upon   the  proper  certificate,  in  each   case,  as  an adverse claim  or  encumbrance.  Section 50 also expressly provides that the act of registration shall be the operative act to convey and affect the  land.   Hence, the  tax sale  made  by the  City  Treasurer to respondent  on  May 4, 1937, did not bind the land and did not affect petitioner  until it was registered on November 3, 1938."

"According to  the  above  transcribed  doctrine,  the period  of one year in the case  at  bar. did not  run  against the oppositors for  it appears in the stipulation of facts that the  certificate of sale has never been registered in the office of the Register of Deeds.   Granting that the  oppositors had knowledge of the sale  in  question, which is  tantamount  to registration  by reason  of the  notice  made by the  Assistant  Treasurer of the City  of Manila to them on  August 26, 1950, Exhibit  "N", Guatilo vs. Marayilla, 48 Phil, 442 or granting that the  one  year period should  be counted  from  the date of the registration of the  deed of  sale, Exhibit  "G", on  February  15, 1952, in   either   case the  oppositors  had  one year  within  which to exercise their rights  to  redemption  or  to pay the  delinquent taxes from the  date of such  knowledge or  from  the date of the registration of the deed of sale.  Since the  oppositors  had  made deposit in  the  present  case  in the Office of  the Treasurer of the City of Manila on  June  20,  1951 or  before  the expiration  of one year in said either  case, for  realty tax  due 450  Malabon, corner Felix  Huertas, Lot   12  of  Block 2255 of  1926 San Lazaro for the  sum of P1,014.66,  Exhibit "F", it  is evident that such  deposit constituted legal  exercise  of their rights  of redemption or  legal tender  of  payment of the delinquent  taxes.

"The mere  fact that  said  amount  was   accounted as  deposit and  trust fund  under  official  receipt  No.   694376-V is  not,  in the opinion of this  Court a" sufficient valid  reason to deprive the oppositors  of  their  ownership  over  the property  herein involved, especially  so  if  they had  not  been  notified of such classification of trust fund."

Petitioner-appellant   contends  that  the  Metropolitan Water  District case as well  as the  case of  Marina V. Tolentino vs.  Romarieo Agcaoili, G.  R.  No.  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.¹, ² G. E.  No.  L-5301, May 10, 1953.   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 a£ 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 protect 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,  specially  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.

Petitioner, however, cites Section 70 of Republic Act 409, which is the revised Charter of the City of Manila, which expressly provides that  the redemption  period of one year should start from the date of sale, as follows:

"Sec. 70. Redemption of real estate. Within one year from  the date of  sale  the  delinquent taxpayer,  or anyone for him, shall have the right  of paying to the city  assessor  and collector  the amount' of  the  public  taxes,  penalties,  and  costs together  with interest on  the purchase price at the rate of fifteen per centum, per  annum from the date  of  purchase of the date  of the redemption;" * * *

and contends  that to  apply Sections 50 and  77 of Act 496 in the  sense  that  the period  of redemption should start from the  registration  of  the tax sale, would render Section  70 of  the Revised Charter of  Manila nugatory or  meaningless. But as the E. F. C.  suggests, the two apparently conflicting laws must be harmonized and  that the  phrase  "the  period of  redemption shall  be within one  year from  the date  of  sale"  provided therein should be interpreted  to refer to the date that the sale is actually registered.   We favor the suggestion.  It should be remembered that the real  properties in the City of Manila are  all registered  under the  Torrens System, and  that all transactions and  conveyances  and liens, whether voluntary or otherwise, involving said  properties must be recorded  in the  Office  of  the  Register  of  Deeds  and annotated  in the  corresponding certificate of title,  this for  the  information not only  of the registered owners, but  also  of  third  parties;  and Section  50 of the Land Registration Act expressly provides that the act of registration is the  operative act.   Accordingly,  an auction sale to satisfy a  tax lien  should be registered so  that the  delinquent  registered owner  who does not  wish to lose his  property  for  mere  tax delinquency, specially if the  amount  of the tax is  out of all proportion to the value  of the property, or  a third person  holding a lien on  said  delinquent property  and  not wishing that the registered  owner lose the  said property, would  be  duly informed, at least constructively, by means of registration of the tax sale, so that  they can decide whether or not to make redemption.

This is  a sound rule  and will tend  to counteract an allegedly  anomalous practice  which  has been  called to our  attention.   We quote from Professor Narciso Peña's book entitled Land Titles and Deeds, 1955  Eev. ed.,  See. 25, p. 278:

"25. When ona-year period for redemption begins to run. Tn cases of tax sales as  well  as those  of  other auction sales  by virtue of attachments, the statutes generally provide for a period of one year for purposes  of redemption.  When sale  involves  registered land; the problem  that may confront us is:  When  does that period commence to run?  Is it from the  actual! date  of  the  auction  sale or from the date of registration of said sale?

"Upon  the assumption that in the cage of  a  tax  sale the period commences from the  actual date  set for  the auction,  it has been the common  practice  among purchasers, from  whom  the property may be redeemed, to withhold the  registration of the deed or certificate of sale  until after the lapse of one year,  when the sale, becomes final thinking that if registration were to be done  earlier the owner or holder oi the title would be awakened in time,  for incidentally he would he  advised by the Register of Deeds to surrender  the title for annotation of the sale, preparatory  to its  consolidation in the vendee  after the lapse of  one  year.  On  the  other hand, if registration takes place after the  lapse of the' statutory period, the owner would no longer have any  more opportunity to exercise his legal right of redemption."

We agree with  the trial court that the  deposit made by the registered owners Juana and Francisco  of the sura of P1,014.65 in the Office of the City Treasurer should and could be used for purposes  of redemption.   It may be that the treasurer in receiving said deposit had considered it as a  trust  fund,  but his   opinion  cannot  stand in  the way  of  redemption.   Not  knowing  whether the  redemption was valid under the law, he probably wanted to play safe  and instead  of  accepting the  amount  for purposes of redemption, he classified it  as trust funds.

We deem it.  unnecessary   to  discuss the  other  points raised in the  appeal.  In view of the  foregoing, the  appealed  order of  June 13,  1965,  is  hereby  affirmed.   No costs.

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

---

¹ 84 Phil., 676.
² 93 Phil., 306.