Facts:

The case at hand is G.R. No. 141993, entitled Narcisa Avila, et al. vs. Spouses Benjamin Barabat and Jovita Barabat. It reached the Supreme Court with a decision rendered on March 17, 2006. The controversy originated from a 433-square meter piece of land located in Poblacion, Toledo City, Cebu, which was previously registered under the name of Anunciacion Bahena vda. de NemeAo. Upon her death, the property was inherited by her five children, including petitioners Narcisa Avila and Natividad Macapaz, among others.

In 1964, Benjamin Barabat began leasing a portion of Avila’s house. After Barabat married Jovita in 1969, they continued to reside in the house. However, by July 1979, Avila returned from Cagayan de Oro City and offered her house and share of the land for sale. They executed a private document on July 17, 1979, which detailed the sale for Php 8,000 to the Barabats. Following this agreement, the Barabats ceased paying rent and claimed ownership over the property, additi

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the July 30, 1999 decision and January 19, 2000 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50899.
• The subject matter involves a portion of a 433‑square meter parcel of land situated in Poblacion, Toledo City, Cebu, designated as cadastral lot no. 348.
• The entire property was registered in the name of Anunciacion Bahena vda. de NemeAo and, upon her death, ownership by operation of law transferred to her five children (the petitioners): Narcisa Avila, Natividad Macapaz, Francisca Adlawan, Leon NemeAo, and Jose Bahena.

Transaction and Documented Sale

• In 1964, respondent Benjamin Barabat leased a portion of the house of petitioner Avila.
• Subsequent to the lease arrangement and years later, Avila, who had relocated to Cagayan de Oro City, returned in July 1979 intending to sell her house and share in the lot.
• With no interest expressed by her siblings, Avila offered the property to respondents Benjamin and his wife, Jovita Barabat, which resulted in a private document executed on July 17, 1979.
• The document stated that Avila sold her house and her share in the inherited property for P8,000.00.
• The instrument provided a detailed description of the boundaries of the property.

Possession, Payment, and Subsequent Disputes

• After the execution of the document, respondents:
• Ceased to pay rentals to Avila.
• Assumed the payment of realty taxes on the property.
• In early 1982, petitioner Januario Adlawan confronted the respondents claiming that they had a limited time (until March 1982) to remain in the property due to his intention to purchase it.
• Respondents countered by showing them the July 17, 1979 private instrument as evidence of the sale.
• On January 6, 1983, respondents received a letter from Atty. Joselito Alo informing them of another sale executed by Avila to the spouses Januario and Nanette Adlawan.

Litigation and Procedural History

• Respondents filed a complaint for quieting of title in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo City, Branch 29 (Civil Case No. T-53), which was later amended to include additional causes of action such as annulment of the subsequent deed, specific performance, partition, and damages.
• The trial court, in its May 9, 1995 decision,:
• Granted relief in favor of the respondents.
• Declared the July 17, 1979 document (Exhibit "A") as a valid and lawful deed of sale, thereby nullifying the subsequent deed of sale to the spouses Adlawan.
• Ordered Avila to execute a formal notarized deed of sale in favor of the respondents while imposing liability for moral damages and attorney’s fees.
• Petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC’s decision.
• Petitioners later raised issues regarding:
• The characterization of the transaction as an absolute sale versus an equitable mortgage.
• Their right to redeem the property and the alleged imputation of partition through the acts and admissions of the parties.

Issue:

• Whether the July 17, 1979 private instrument executed by Avila evidenced an absolute sale or was merely an equitable mortgage designed to secure the payment of a debt.
• Whether the additional facts surrounding the realty tax payments and the allegation of gross inadequacy of the selling price warranted the application of Articles 1602 and 1604 of the Civil Code.
• Whether petitioners had any right to redeem the property, particularly under the provisions of Article 1623 in relation to Article 1620 of the Civil Code.
• Whether the conduct and admissions of the petitioners in their amended answer, which effectively established that each had already taken possession of their respective portions of the property (i.e., partition), extinguished any right to redemption.
• Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the decision of the RTC by interpreting the evidence in favor of an absolute sale rather than an equitable mortgage.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)