G.R. No. L-46001 - Caro vs. Court of Appeals

Alfredo Benito, Mario Benito, and Benjamin Benito were co-owners of two parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-609 and T-610 in Sorsogon.
Mario Benito died in January 1957. His surviving wife, Basilia Lahorra, and father, Saturnino Benito, were appointed joint administrators of his estate under Special Proceeding No. 508, Court of First Instance of Sorsogon.

On August 26, 1959, Benjamin Benito sold his one-third undivided share in the parcels of land to petitioner Luz Caro for P10,000; sale registered on September 29, 1959.
With consents from Alfredo Benito and Saturnino Benito (both administrators/co-owners), a subdivision was made, and a subdivision title (TCT No. T-4978) was issued to Luz Caro over Lot I-C. The consents were shown by affidavits dated September 15, 1960.

In May 1966, Basilia Lahorra (private respondent) learned from pleadings that Luz Caro purchased Benjamin’s one-third share and sent a written offer to redeem on August 25, 1966, which Luz Caro ignored.
Basilia Lahorra attempted to intervene in an earlier related case (Civil Case No. 2105) to annul the sale and mortgage but failed due to procedural dismissals and non-payment of docketing fees.
Basilia Lahorra then filed an independent case claiming lack of proper notice of sale as required by Articles 1620 and 1623 of the New Civil Code.

Luz Caro presented secondary evidence (affidavit of Benjamin Benito and deposition of Saturnino’s widow) to prove written notices had been given previously to co-owners or their representatives.
The trial court dismissed the complaint on grounds that:

The administratrix (private respondent) lacked legal power to exercise the right of redemption;
Benjamin Benito had substantially complied with notice requirements under the law.

The right of co-owners and heirs to legal redemption arises after death of Mario Benito and is a personal right not part of his estate administration;
The affidavit and testimony offered by Luz Caro were insufficient proof of proper notice to all redemptioners, particularly the widow Basilia;
The right of redemption was not extinguished by registration of the sale;
No valid notice meant no valid starting point for the 30-day redemption period, so the redemption was timely.

Ordered Luz Caro to execute a deed of redemption upon payment or deposit of P10,000 within 30 days after finality of judgment.

Right of legal redemption was improperly allowed since co-ownership was terminated by subdivision and partition;
No valid notice was given to commence the right of redemption period;
The administratrix had no authority to exercise the right of redemption;
The sale was conclusively established and indefeasible by issuance of the subdivision title.

Whether the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the New Civil Code applies when a subdivision and partition of co-owned property has already been made, terminating the co-ownership.

Whether Basilia Lahorra, as administratrix of the intestate estate of Mario Benito, had legal personality and power to exercise the right of legal redemption against the purchaser Luz Caro.

Whether the vendors and purchaser complied with the legal notice requirement under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code for the sale of co-owned property.

Whether the issuance of a subdivision title to Luz Caro extinguished or invalidated the right of legal redemption.

Whether the 30-day period to exercise the right of redemption was properly invoked or if it had expired due to failure of notice or diligence of the redemptioner.