G.R. No. 5483 - Marasigan vs. Moore

Nicolas Calayag, having acquired a 44-hectare parcel of nipa land in Tibagan, Hagonoy, Bulacan through an adjudication in foreclosure proceedings against Claro Cordero and Felipa Alfaro, sold the property on November 11, 1893, to Ciriaco Cabral and Benigno Cabral for P1,500, reserving for himself the right of redemption for ten years.
Subsequently, on September 5, 1894, Ciriaco Cabral, and on October 10, 1895, Benigno Cabral, sold their respective halves to Francisco Icasiano for P1,000 and P750 respectively, with the same right of redemption, the period of which was reckoned from November 11, 1893.
Francisco Icasiano, in an instrument dated January 20, 1904, confirmed that in November 1899 he sold the same land to Adriano Gatmaitan (married to Maria Concepcion Achuy) for P1,500, again encumbering the sale with the right of redemption in favor of Nicolas Calayag for a term of ten years.

In 1902, Patrick J. Moore initiated proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate of Claro Cordero and Felipa Alfaro. Before duly taking his oath as administrator (eventually taking it on August 23, 1902), Moore seized the land and formally inventoried it as part of the estate, exercising its usufruct and collecting its products.
Following the death of Adriano Gatmaitan and his wife Maria Concepcion Achuy, Ambrosio Marasigan was appointed as the judicial administrator of the Gatmaitan intestate estate.
On May 3, 1906, Marasigan filed a suit against Patrick J. Moore, seeking the restitution of the despoiled property, a declaration of ownership, and the payment of damages.

Moore, subsequently substituted by Attorney Ramon Salinas, answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint asserting that the intestate estate of Felipa Alfaro and Claro Cordero had a positive right of redemption to the property, pleading that the plaintiff be bound to accept the redemption price.
In reply, the plaintiff generally denied the facts and specifically raised the prescription of the right of redemption as a defense.
The Court of First Instance of Bulacan ruled that the ownership and possession held by the Gatmaitan intestate estate were subject to the right of redemption—declaring that, by the terms of the instruments executed by Nicolas Calayag and Francisco Icasiano, the redemption condition subsisted.
The lower court ordered that the defendant (Moore) pay P1,175.71 as loss and damages (with legal interest), in addition to other orders concerning the expenses and the redemption by the Gatmaitan estate.

Moore (on behalf of the intestate estate of Felipa Alfaro and Claro Cordero) appealed against the lower court’s declaration that the property was subject to a right of redemption and the imputation of personal liability to him.
The assignments of error included:

The admission of Exhibit F—a document allegedly showing an agreement between the heirs of Nicolas Calayag and Francisca Cordero—which the appellant contended was improper in this suit.
The failure to strike statements made by Attorney Salinas during trial regarding the redemption right.
The declaration that the intestate estate of Felipa Alfaro and Claro Cordero held a right of redemption, and the ensuing finding that such a right was not lost through prescription.
The imposition of personal liability upon Moore rather than upon the estate, particularly regarding the loss resulting from the failure to redeem the property.

Testimonies revealed that during negotiations between Moore and Marasigan, Francisco Pasco delivered a total of P2,400 (disbursed in two installments) for the redemption of the land.
Witnesses, including Francisco Pasco, Miguel Pasco, and Eulalio Bundoc, testified regarding the chain of possession and the understanding that Moore was to effect the redemption.
However, matters were complicated by Moore’s unilateral actions, his subsequent abandonment of his administrative responsibility, and discrepancies regarding whether he had the proper authority to effectuate a redemption.
Additionally, the Record indicated interpersonal misunderstandings and failed transactions (involving Jose Tionson) that ultimately prevented a proper redemption from being effectuated.

Whether the right of redemption reserved in the sale by Nicolas Calayag, being a personal and contractual stipulation, was ever transmitted to or could be exercised by the intestate estate of Felipa Alfaro and Claro Cordero.

Did the original instruments, which reserved redemption for Calayag, permit any subsequent transfer of that right to a party other than Calayag or his heirs?

Whether Patrick J. Moore, acting as judicial administrator of the Alfaro-Cordero intestate estate, acted beyond his authority when he assumed the right of redemption and handled proceeds related to its redemption.

Was Moore’s unilateral action—such as accepting money for a redemption that was never properly invoked—within the scope of his authority as an administrator?
Can a personal right of redemption be imputed to an estate through such unauthorized actions?

Whether the admission of Exhibit F—an extraneous document showing an agreement between Nicolas Calayag’s heirs and Francisca Cordero—was appropriate in deciding this dispute.

Does the document have any bearing on the rights of the intestate estates involved, given that it relates to a private contractual arrangement not binding on the parties in this suit?

Whether the lower court correctly attributed liability for damages to Moore personally rather than to the intestate estate of Felipa Alfaro and Claro Cordero, especially considering that Moore’s actions may have exceeded his judicial authorization.