Title
Avila vs. Spouses Barabat
Case
G.R. No. 141993
Decision Date
Mar 17, 2006
Heirs partitioned land; Avila sold her share to respondents, later claimed by another heir. Court upheld sale, ruling partition dissolved co-ownership, denying redemption rights.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 179382)

Facts:

  • Title and ownership of the property
    • The disputed land is a 433-square-meter parcel in Poblacion, Toledo City, Cebu (cadastral lot no. 348), originally registered in the name of Anunciacion Bahena vda. de Nemeño.
    • Upon her death, the lot passed by operation of law to her five children—Narcisa Avila, Natividad Macapaz, Francisca Adlawan, Leon Nemeño and Jose Bahena—who each built their own houses thereon.
  • Agreement between Avila and the Barabats
    • In 1964, respondent Benjamin Barabat leased a portion of Avila’s house; his wife Jovita joined him in 1969. Avila moved to Cagayan de Oro City, returning in July 1979 to offer for sale her house and hereditary share, which none of her siblings wished to purchase.
    • On July 17, 1979, Avila executed a private document purporting to sell her house and share for ₱8,000 to spouses Benjamin and Jovita Barabat. Respondents then ceased paying rent, assumed ownership‐like possession and paid the realty taxes.
  • Proceedings in the trial and appellate courts
    • Early 1982: Petitioners, co-heirs Adlawan, claimed they had bought the property; respondents showed them the 1979 document. January 1983: respondents received notice that Avila had purportedly sold to the Adlawans.
    • Respondents filed RTC Civil Case No. T-53 for quieting of title, annulment of the Adlawan deed, specific performance, partition and damages. The RTC (May 9, 1995) and the Court of Appeals (July 30, 1999) declared Exhibit “A” a valid deed of sale, nullified the subsequent sale to the Adlawans, and ordered Avila to execute a formal public deed in favor of respondents. This petition under Rule 45 followed.

Issues:

  • Nature of the July 17, 1979 transaction
    • Whether the agreement constituted an absolute sale or an equitable mortgage under Articles 1602 and 1604 of the Civil Code.
    • Whether gross inadequacy of price or assumption of taxes support a presumption of equitable mortgage.
  • Right of redemption and partition among co-heirs
    • Whether petitioners as co-owners had a right of redemption under Articles 1620 and 1623 of the Civil Code.
    • Whether the acts of petitioners and physical segregation of shares constituted an implied partition, thereby extinguishing co-ownership.
  • Adjoining‐land owner’s pre-emption or redemption right
    • Whether petitioners could invoke Article 1622’s pre-emption or post-sale redemption right as owners of adjoining land.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.