Case Digest (G.R. No. 141993)
Facts:
Narcisa Avila, assisted by her husband Bernardo Avila, spouses Januario N. Adlawan and Nanette A. Adlawan, Natividad Macapaz, assisted chairperson, by her husband Emilio Macapaz, Francisca N. Adlawan Corona, and Leon Nemeno, Azcuna, and petitioners, vs. Spouses Benjamin Barabat and Jovita Barabat, G.R. No. 141993, March 17, 2006, the Supreme Court Second Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.The controversy concerns a portion of a 433-square meter parcel (cadastral lot no. 348) in Poblacion, Toledo City, originally registered in the name of Anunciacion Bahena vda. de Nemeno. Upon her death, ownership passed by operation of law to her five children, including petitioner Narcisa Avila and several siblings who thereafter built their respective houses on the lot. In 1964 Benjamin Barabat leased a portion of Avila’s house; his wife Jovita Barabat joined him in 1969.
Having moved to Cagayan de Oro, Avila returned in July 1979 seeking to sell her house and share; respondents agreed to buy and respondents produced a private document dated July 17, 1979 (offered as Exhibit “A”) purporting to evidence sale of Avila’s house and share for P8,000. After the execution of Exhibit “A”, respondents stopped paying rent to Avila, assumed payment of the real property taxes, and took possession as owners.
In early 1982 petitioner Januario Adlawan claimed he was buying the property and demanded respondents vacate; respondents showed Exhibit “A”. On January 6, 1983 respondents received a letter claiming Avila had sold the property to the spouses Adlawan. Respondents then demanded Avila execute a public deed evidencing sale, but Avila refused and later asserted that Exhibit “A” was not a sale but rather a loan transaction secured by an equitable mortgage — alleging she innocently signed the document prepared by respondents.
Respondents filed a complaint for quieting of title with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Toledo City, Branch 29 (Civil Case No. T-53), later amending the complaint to seek annulment of the deed to the Adlawans, specific performance, partition and damages. The RTC, in a May 9, 1995 decision, declared Exhibit “A” a valid deed of sale, nullified the subsequent deed to the Adlawans, ordered Avila to execute a formal notarized deed in respondents’ favor, and awarded moral damages and attorney’s fees.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50899; the Court of Appeals, in a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the transaction evidenced by Exhibit “A” constitute an equitable mortgage or an absolute sale?
- Were petitioners co-owners entitled to exercise the right of redemption under Articles 1620 and 1623 of the Civil Code?
- Did Article 1622 (pre-emption/redemption of adjoining owners)...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)