Appeal by  certiorari from a decision  of  the Court  of Appeals  declaring the  tax  title  of  defendants-appellees to the property  subject of the action null and void, and ordering  them  to pay plaintiffs-appellants  the   sum   of P300.00 as attorney's fees;

The facts  material  to the case, as  found by the  Court of Appeals,  are   as  follows:

"From the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, it appears that the two parcels of land  involved herein were registered under the Land Registration Act,  in the  names of  the brothers Miguel  Pantaleon and Florentina Pantaleon, as co-owners, up to the institution  of this action.  Florentina Pantaleon  was the  deceased parent of the plaintiffs.  In 1918,  Miguel Pantaleon executed in favor  of the spouses Francisco Manang Cruz  and  Bruna Fantalcon a deed of sale of the "derecho, titulo y participacion que el  condueno inscrito  Miguel Pantaleon tiene sobre el terreno descmto  en este certificado  de titulo"  (referring to  O. C. T. Nos. 1380 and 1484).  The other halves of the  properties covered by these titles which  pertained to Florentina Pantaleon  and not disposed of by Miguel, were in  the  possession of the plaintiff up to  the filing of this action. It appears that those halves  were formerly in the possession of defendants Eruna Pantaleon, Demetria M.  Cruz  and Leonida M.  Cruz, but  in  1945,  the plaintiffs were  restored to the possession thereof upon demand from said Bruna, Demetria and Leonida,  in consideration of the  renun- ciation by the plaintiffs of their right to recover from them (defendants)  the  value of the produce of the  undisposed portions and  of the obligation undertaken by said defendants to pay all real property taxes  thereon.  This  undertaking,  however,  was not complied with by the defendants and, in 1951, the two parcels of land, covered by O. C. T. Nos. 1380 and 1484, were sold in their entirety by the defendant  Provincial Treasurer  of Rizal, for alleged non-payment of P57.57, the taxes due thereon,  and  were bought by  the defendant  spouses  Teodulo  Carignra and Demetria  Cruz  for P540, they being the highest bidders at the public auction sale.  One year thereafter, the veiidecs were given the final deeds of sale  (Exhibit 8) 'which were annotated on the dorsum of the certificates of title. Plaintiffs allege that all these proceedings were not  known to them and when later on  they learned about them, they hurriedly engaged a lawyer to bring  this action."

In the complaint  plaintiffs allege  that their undivided share in  the two  lots subject of the action  was sold for non-payment of land  taxes  thereon through  connivance between the defendants; that their share in  the property was sold at public  auction  without  the  necessary  public notice and  without notice to them of any tax delinquency thereon, notwithstanding the fact that they were in actual physical  occupation  of  the  land  before  the  sale.  They, therefore, pray  that the sale of  their share  in the lands in favor  of the  defendants be  declared null and void and that they be paid damages.   In their answer the defendants deny  specifically  most  of  the material  allegations of the  complaint and  allege  that the lands  were sold at public  auction  after due notice of the delinquency,  in accordance  with  the required procedure established by law that plaintiffs do  not have  any right to the  property as they have never claimed such right for the last 34 years and since 1918  when  the properties were sold  to  Francisco Manang Cruz and  Bruna  Pantaleon.  As the provincial treasurer of  Rizal  and the municipal  treasurer  of Teresa, Rizal were included as defendants, they also presented their answer  denying the  alleged failure to comply with  the procedure established  by law  for  the sale  of delinquent properties.  As special defenses they allege that the tax lien attached to  the realty to whomsoever the land is sold  or transferred,  and the  tax liability fall  on them.

The Court of First Instance of Rizal,  after trial, dismissed the action,  holding  that  as the plaintiffs  had not paid the taxes  due, in spite of the fact that they were in possession of the property as co-owners  since 1945, the remedy prayed for could not be  granted them because they had slept  on their rights.  Against this  decision, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which  reversed the judgment  appealed from  and rendered  the  decision already pointed out above.

In  this Court, petitioners make seven  assignments of error.  It is not, however, necessary to  consider  all of them as  the  main  contention in all  is that the  respondents are guilty of  estoppel by laches because  they have failed to declare the property in their names  for  a  period of 35  years; that  in spite of  the  fact  that  they have been in possession  since  1941  up to 1952 they have not paid a centavo of  the taxes due thereon.  It is  furthermore claimed that  no  notice  of the delinquency of the tax of the property was  made because the property was declared in the name of Francisco M.  Cruz and not in their name,  it being impossible that a person  is not  the declared owner of the  property be notified of the delinquency.

There is no  question that the  whole land was  assessed in the name  of Francisco M.  Cruz from  the  time he bought the one-half share of  Miguel Pantaleon;  that the delinquency for taxes  was  on  the two parcels  of land in question;  designated as lots Nos.  3577  and  3579  of the cadastral  survey of Antipolo,  Rizal;  that  the delinquency was  for  seven  years, from 1944 to  1951; that the heirs of the registered owner  of one-half undivided share in the properties,  Florentina. Pantaleon, are  not included as declared owners of  the property,  the declared  owner being Francisco M. Cruz alone;  that  Francisco M.  Cruz  was the only one notified of  the proceedings  for the sale of the property  on the ground of delinquency in the payment of real estate  taxes, and the heirs of Florentina Pan- taleon were not notified;  and that the petitioners Bruna Pantaleon,  et al.,  were  the purchasers of the  said  lots at  the  sale at  public  auction  conducted  by  the  officials of  the municipality.

With the above facts  in mind,  the Question  presented to  us  for determination  is whether or  not the  plaintiffs, respondents herein,  lost  their  title  and interest  in said undivided share because  of the administrative proceedings for the sale  of said  lands  in their entirety  to  the  petitioners-appellants herein.  The Court of Appeals resolved this  question  in part in the following  manner:

"Appellants argue that in  the supposition that  the sale  at public auction was regular, still the  defendants-vendees did not  acquire any right at said sale.  The argument is not without merits.  The right of Francisco M. Cruz over the  land described  in O. C. T. Nos. 1380  and 1484 was limited  to  the rights,  title  and participation of the registered co-owner Miguel Pantaleon.  Only one-half of said prop- erties corresponded to said Miguel Pantaleon.  In the  public auc- tion, however, both parcels of land were sold  in  their entirety, although  the certificates of gale stated  that  the  vendee acquired only the rights  and interests  of Francisco M. Cruz. In other words, if Francisco M. Cruz became delinquent in the payment of real property taxes  on his portion acquired from Miguel Pantaleon,  then only his right can be sold to satisfy the delinquency.  The interest of the appellants over  the  other half not disposed  of in the  deed in favor of Francisco M. Cruz cannot be prejudiced or adversely affected  by  the  act of  said Cms  (Sec.  10,  Rules 123,  Rules  of Court), and the title in a tax sale being a mere derivative one,  the pur- chasers acquire  only the apparent interest, whatever it is, of the fax delinquent  (Gov't  of the  P.  I. vs. Adriano, 41 Phil., 112).  Defendants-vendees claim good  faith and alleged  that they bought an apparently good title without notice  of anything calculated to impair it.  It has been held, however, 'that a purchaser of delinquent property at a tax sale, is subject to the rule of caveat  emptor  and shall suffer all defect of prior title *  * *.  There is no warranty by the State of the title to a  land sold at  a tax  sale  (Ramirez vs. Ilagan,  supra).  In the instant case,  the annotation  on  the reverse Side of the O. C.  T. Nos. 1380 and  1484 revealed that the rights of Francisco M. Crux over the  properties in  question were not at all  absolute in character.  Therefore, the sale  conducted by the defendant Provincial Treasurer did not convey the  whole  title to the  defendants-vendees, because the alleged  delinquent owners  did  not own all the properties sold at public  auction.   The purchaser could not claim  any better title than its predecessors  (Government  vs. Adriano, supra)."

It  is to be  noted that  Florentina Pantaleon, mother of the plaintiffs, is the registered owner of an  undivided one-half  share  of the parcels of land  in question and plaintiffs succeeded her as  owners thereof.   Francisco  M. Cruz, under  whose name both parcels of  land were de- clared in their entirety, had acquired only the  undivided one-half share  of Miguel Pantaleon, and this limited nature  of his  right appears at the  back of the certificates of title  covering  the  said  lands.   Francisco M. Cruz is not,  therefore,  the owner of the other undivided one-half share, originally belonging to  Florentina Pantaleon.

The question  directly presented  by the facts,  therefore, is:  Are  the rights of a  registered but undeclared owner of one-half of the property,  affected by the  administrative or tax delinquency proceeding against the  registered owner of the  other half of  the property, who is  the declared owner of the whole?   The provisions of the  Provincial Assessment Law in force at the time of the promulgation of the decision  in Government of the P. I. vs. Adriano,  41 Phil.  112  (1920) are still in force.  These  provisions are now Sections 28 to 41 of Commonwealth Act No. 470 (June 16, 1939).   In  the case of  Government  of  the P. I. vs. Adriano,  supra, we held that the  above  provisions  of the law for the sale of the land for non-payment of taxes establish a proceeding in personam, as the tax is not a charge on the land  alone,  and only the particular interest of the person to whom the land  is  assessed is sold.   Thus it was  said:

"The exact phraseology of  the particular  statute would seem to determine the  doctrine applicable in  each jurisdiction.  The Philippine law on the subject of taxation, when this tax sale occurred, was found  in the  Municipal Code, Act  No. 82  (sections  74-83), as amended by Act No. 1130.  According  to these  provisions, in case of default  in the  payment of land taxes, the personal  property of the delinquent was first seized.  Taxes and penalties were thereafter enforceable against the realty arid, if necessary, it could be sold to satisfy the public taxes assessed against  it.  In case the taxpayer did not redeem the land sold within one year from the date of the sale, the provincial treasurer, as grantor, executed  a deed conveying the land to the purchaser free from all liens of any kind  whatsoever.

"It  is thus seen that there was  no provision in  the  local  law, such as is found in Iowa and other  states, vesting  in the purchaser 'all the title of the former owner as well  as  the State and County.' (See Hefner vs. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. .[1887], 123 U.S., 747.)  It is further seen that proceedings in the Philippines for the sale of land for the nonpayment of  taxes were in  personam.  (Valencia vs. Jimenez and Fuster [1908],  11 Phil.,  492).  The tax was not a charge upon the land  alone.  The  authorities  were first re- quired to hunt up the owner and to make the  tax out of his  personal property.  Only the  particular interest or title of the  person. to whom  the land is assessed was sold.  As a  stream cannot  rise higher  than its  source, so  the  purchaser  could  not  claim  any better title than  his predecessors."  (Government  of the P. I. vs, Adriano,  41 Phil. 118-119).

That  the proceedings  for  the  sale  of delinquent real estate under the  Provincial Assessment  Law are  in personam  can be inferred  from a comparison thereof with the corresponding provisions of the  Revised  Charter  of the  City  of  Manila, Republic  Act  No.  409.   Section 56 imposes a duty upon  any person acquiring  real estate or constructing thereon to prepare a declaration thereof, for purposes  of  assessment,  and  the assessment then  made is made  "valid  and binding on all. persons  interested." Section  57 provides that if  an  owner  fails  to make  a return  or declaration  and  the  assessor  is  unable to  discover the owner, the latter shall nevertheless list the same for taxation, and charge the tax against the true owner, if known, and if unknown  against an unknown owner.  Sec- tion 58  requires the assessor  to list and value  property not  already listed and  charge  against the  owner thereof the  taxes  due  and past  due.   Section  68  provides that taxes and penalties assessed against realty shall  constitute a lien  thereon,  superior to all  others,  thus:

"Sec. 68. Tax  lien. Taxes and penalties assessed  agains realty shall constitute a  lien  thereon, which shall be superior to all other liens, mortgages, or incumbrances of any kind whatsoever; shall bo enforceable against the property whether in the possession  of the delinquent or any of the tax and penalty.  A lien upon real estate for taxes levied for each year shall attach on the first day of January of such year."  (Republic Act No. 409.) Section 69  provides that advertisements for  the sale of real estate  shall be published  in a newspaper of general circulation  in  the city.  It  also provides  that it  is  not essential for  the validity  of  the  sale  at  public auction that distraint  of  personal  property of the  delinquent be proceeded  with, the  distraint   being  merely  cumulative. Section 71  provides  that the tax deed to be  issued upon the sale conveys  to  the purchaser so much as has been sold,  "free  from all liens of any kind whatsoever."

The above indicated provisions of  the Revised Charter of the City of Manila  are  not found  or  included  in  the Provincial  Assessment  Law.   Had it  been the intention of the law  to make the proceedings for the sale of  delinquent real  estate  in  the provinces in  rem,  as in the City of Manila,  the above provisions, which indicate that  the proceedings bind the real estate and all the persons having an interest therein,  whether notified  or not  of the proceedings,  would  have  been inserted  in  the Provincial Assessment Law.   Under the provisions as they are,  the proceedings for the sale of  real estate for  delinquency in the provinces must be held to  be in personam.

As the  proceedings in the case at bar are not proceedings in rem. but merely in personam, it follows as a necessary consequence  that  the  rights  of   the  registered  but undeclared  owners were not affected  by the  proceedings in the sale for delinquency.

We  find  no  merit  in the  claim  of the  defendants-petitioners  that plaintiffs-respondents  are guilty of estoppel by  laches.  Petitioners  bought the property only in the year  1951, and the action  of respondents was  instituted in 1953,  within a period  of one  year from the sale. Besides, the rule of caveat emptor applies to the purchaser at the  sale.  The purchasers  should   have gone to  the

registry of the property to find out the real nature of the right  of the  declared  owner,  which  right was the one being  sold at auction, and had they done  so they would have discovered that his right was only an undivided one-half share of the properties.

Having arrived at  the  above  conclusions, it becomes unnecessary to consider the other points  raised and  upon which the decision of the Court of Appeals are also based. The decision appealed from is  hereby  affirmed, with  costs against  the  petitioners.

Montemayor,  Reyes, A.,  Bautista Angelo,  Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.
Paras, C. J., concurs in the result.