Case Digest (G.R. No. L-46001)
Facts:
Luz Caro v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Basilia Lahorra Vda. de Benito, G.R. No. L-46001, March 25, 1982, Supreme Court First Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Luz Caro; private respondent is Basilia Lahorra Vda. de Benito, sued as administratrix of the intestate estate of Mario Benito; the Court of Appeals and its decision below are also respondents in the Rule 45 certiorari petition.The underlying facts are largely undisputed. Alfredo, Mario and Benjamin Benito were co-owners of two parcels (TCT Nos. T-609 and T-610). Mario died in January 1957; his widow Basilia and his father Saturnino were later appointed joint administrators of Mario’s estate in Special Proceeding No. 508, CFI Sorsogon. On August 26, 1959 Benjamin sold his one‑third undivided share in the parcels to Luz Caro for P10,000; the sale was registered September 29, 1959. With affidavits of consent from Alfredo and Saturnino dated September 15, 1960, a subdivision was effected and a subdivision title (TCT No. T‑4978) was later issued in favor of Luz Caro over Lot I‑C.
Private respondent learned in May 1966—through a pleading in Special Proceeding No. 508—that petitioner had purchased Benjamin’s share. She sent a purported offer to redeem dated August 25, 1966; petitioner ignored it. After failing to intervene in a separate case for procedural reasons, Basilia filed an independent action seeking annulment of the sale, cancellation of the annotation and specifically asserting a right of legal redemption under Article 1620 (in connection with Art. 1623) of the New Civil Code on the ground she had not been notified as a possible redemptioner.
At trial petitioner offered secondary evidence (an antecedent affidavit by Benjamin asserting written notices were given to co‑owners and the deposition of Saturnino’s widow who said she delivered a notice to her husband). The trial court dismissed Basilia’s complaint, ruling (a) the administratrix had no power to exercise the right of legal redemption, and (b) Benjamin substantially complied with the notice requirement (thus precluding redemption). Private respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied; she appealed to the Court of Appeals (appeal from the CFI decision).
The Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 52570‑R; decision promulgated February 11, 1977; resolution denying reconsideration May 13, 1977) reversed the trial court and ordered redemption upon payment/deposit of P10,000 within 30 days, reasoning among other things that the right of redemption arose after Mario’s death and was personal to the heirs, that neither vendor nor vendee had given the written notice required by Article 1623, and that the affidavits and recitals relied on by petitioner did not c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the administratrix, Basilia Lahorra Vda. de Benito, has the legal personality/power to exercise the right of legal redemption on behalf of the intestate estate of Mario Benito.
- Whether the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 (in connection with Art. 1623) may be exercised after the property has been subdivided and a subdivision certificate of title (TCT No. T‑4978) has been issued to the purchaser.
- Whether, assuming a right of redemption existed, there was compliance with the written‑notice requirement and timeliness nec...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)