Title
Castillo vs. Samonte
Case
G.R. No. L-13146
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1960
A co-heir, unaware of a sale, successfully exercised his right to redeem inherited property under civil code provisions, though attorney's fees were disallowed.

Case Digest (A.C. No. 4763)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Property and Inheritance
    • Romualda Meneses owned an unregistered residential land in Bambang, Bulacan, with an approximate area of 394 square meters.
    • Upon her demise, her compulsory heirs included the plaintiff (Valentin Castillo) and his siblings—brothers Gregorio Castillo and Jose Castillo, and sister Melencia (also referred to as Gregorio Asuncion in subsequent references).
  • Sale of the Undivided Interest
    • The property remained undivided as the heirs did not partition the inherited estate either judicially or extra-judicially.
    • On July 13, 1953, without notifying his co-heirs in writing, he heir Gregorio Castillo sold his undivided interest in the property for P1,000.00 to Arturo Samonte (the defendant).
    • The defendant registered the deed of sale with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on July 16, 1953.
  • Discovery and Exercise of the Right of Redemption
    • In September 1956, during the cadastral survey, the plaintiff learned of the sale for the first time.
    • On September 15, 1956, the plaintiff immediately offered to redeem the property from the defendant.
    • The defendant refused to repurchase the property from the plaintiff.
  • Initiation of the Legal Action
    • On December 19, 1956, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Civil Case No. 1424) seeking an order to reconvey or transfer the property back to him.
    • The trial court rendered a decision on September 6, 1957, directing the defendant to:
      • Reconvey the property to the plaintiff upon payment of P1,000.00 (the consideration of the sale).
      • Pay P200.00 as attorney’s fees.
      • Bear the costs of the action.
  • Defendant’s Grounds for Appeal
    • The defendant (Arturo Samonte) raised three specific errors:
      • The trial court’s failure to order the inclusion of the vendor (Gregorio Castillo) as either a party plaintiff or party defendant.
      • The upholding of the plaintiff’s right to redeem the property under Article 1088 of the New Civil Code, despite allegations of the right being exercised beyond the prescribed period.
      • The award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiff without an adequately stated reason.

Issues:

  • Whether the trial court erred in not joining the vendor (Gregorio Castillo) as a party plaintiff or defendant, even though he was a necessary but not indispensable party.
  • Whether the plaintiff’s right to redeem the property under Article 1088 of the New Civil Code was validly exercised given that the written notice requirement was allegedly not complied with since the plaintiff was not notified in writing.
  • Whether the award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiff was justified, particularly in view of the requirement that such fees be granted only when the defendant has acted in gross and evident bad faith.

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.