Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44664)
Facts:
Bernardo Mendoza I, Bernardo Mendoza II, Guadalupe M. Mangale, Juliana M. Samonte, Pacita M. Samonte, Ricardo Mendoza, Francisco Mendoza, Patricia Mendoza, Olympia M. Dizon, Romeo Mendoza, Reynaldo Mendoza, Remedios M. Bernabe and Trinidad Manuel Mendoza v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Renato Samonte and Lucia Dela Cruz Samonte, G.R. No. L-44664, July 31, 1991, the Supreme Court First Division, Medialdea, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners (the Mendoza heirs) filed, on February 18, 1969, an action for reconveyance in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan against private respondents Renato Samonte and Lucia de la Cruz Samonte. In an amended complaint (October 27, 1970) petitioners alleged, in the alternative, entitlement to legal redemption should the sale by petitioner Trinidad Manuel Mendoza to respondents be held valid. During pre-trial (June 28, 1971) the parties submitted a partial stipulation of facts describing the family relationships, the decedent Arcadio Mendoza’s nine parcels (including Lot 3), and the subdivision that created Lot 3-A (2,238 sq. m.) and Lot 3-B (2,115 sq. m.) under Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-17370 dated September 7, 1961, approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration.
The stipulation and documentary exhibits showed that on June 26, 1962 petitioner Trinidad Manuel Mendoza executed a Tagalog “Dokumento ng Bilihan” selling Lot 3-A to respondents for ₱3,500, the deed being witnessed by petitioners Juliana and Pacita and notarized by Atty. Pedro Magsalin; the deed contained language stating that Lot 3-A was Trinidad’s share pursuant to a partition agreement among her and her children. Petitioners testified at trial denying knowledge or understanding of the deed’s contents and claiming their interests had not been partitioned because the related litigation (C.A.-G.R. No. 22891‑R) was not finally decided until September 23, 1964.
On October 15, 1973 the trial court dismissed the complaint with costs, finding that (1) the subdivision plan and the contents of the Dokumento ng Bilihan established a partition which adjudicated Lot 3‑A to Trinidad; (2) signatories were presumed to have understood the Tagalog deed they signed and were estopped to deny it; (3) the heirs’ silence and the defendants’ open improvements supported acquiescence; and (4) Article 1620 of the Civil Code (right of legal redemption) did not apply because co‑ownership had been extinguished by partition. The Court of Appeals affirmed in C.A.-G.R. No. 56049‑R by decision dated June 23, 1976 and denied reconsideration on Septem...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the Dokumento ng Bilihan executed by petitioner Trinidad Manuel Mendoza on June 26, 1962 a valid and enforceable instrument?
- Can petitioners still exercise the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code with res...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)