Case Digest (G.R. No. 56550)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 56550)
Facts:
Marina Z. Reyes, Augusto M. Zaballero and Socorro Z. Francisco v. The Honorable Alfredo B. Concepcion, CFI of Cavite, Tagaytay, Br. IV, Socorro Marquez Vda. de Zaballero, Eugenia Z. Luna, Leonardo M. Zaballero, and Elena Fronda Zaballero, G.R. No. 56550, October 01, 1990, Supreme Court Third Division, Cortes, J., writing for the Court.On March 13, 1980, petitioners filed Civil Case No. TG-572 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cavite, Tagaytay Branch IV, seeking injunction and damages to enjoin private respondents from selling their pro‑indiviso shares in eight registered parcels (TCT Nos. A‑1316 to A‑1322), aggregating about 96 hectares. Petitioners invoked Article 1620 of the New Civil Code, asserting a preferential (pre‑emptive/redemption) right to purchase co‑owners’ shares at a reasonable price.
The trial court denied petitioners’ ex parte application for a writ of preliminary injunction on March 17, 1980, finding that a registered lis pendens gave adequate protection. Private respondents answered with a counterclaim for partition; Elena Fronda Zaballero moved to intervene. At pre‑trial the parties stipulated they were pro‑indiviso co‑owners, identified portions subject to ongoing NHA expropriation cases, agreed on an evidenced current valuation of P95,132.00 per hectare, and disclosed that the alleged buyer (variously identified as Volcano Securities Traders and Agri‑Business Corporation or Volcano Lakeview Resorts, Inc.) had offered P12.50 per square meter (P9,000,000 for 72 hectares) on specified payment terms and had asked plaintiffs either to exercise pre‑emption, agree to physical partition, or join in selling to the third party.
The trial judge issued a pre‑trial order (July 9, 1980) giving petitioners ten days to approve or submit a subdivision plan. Private respondents submitted subdivision plans but petitioners did not respond definitively, insisting the reasonable value issue required full trial and reiterating their claimed pre‑emptive right. Private respondents then, by motion (Dec. 16, 1980), asked the court to require petitioners to choose which option under Article 498 of the Civil Code they would avail of: allotment to a co‑owner at P12.50/m2 or sale to the third party and division of proceeds. The trial judge’s February 4, 1981 order required the parties to answer questions to determine applicability of Article 498.
Petitioners sought clarification on the third party’s identity; the trial judge rejected this as irrelevant. Petitioners persisted and requested hearings on valuation. On March 16, 1981, the trial judge denied petitioners’ motion, ruled they had no pre‑emptive right to buy co‑owners’ shares, found the properties essentially indivisible, and ordered a public sale under Article 498 with an opening bid of P12.50/m2 (auction set April 13–14, 1981). Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but before resolution they filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court alleging lack or grave abuse of jurisdiction by the trial judge in issuing the March 16, 1981 order; on April 8, 1981 the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the public sale. After comment and reply the Court took the case under advisement and rendered the present decision.
Issues:
- Did the respondent trial judge act without jurisdiction or in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying petitioners’ claimed pre‑emptive (redemption) right under Article 1620 of the New Civil Code?
- Was the trial court’s order directing a public sale of the subject properties under Article 498 of the New Civil Code proper?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)