Case Digest (G.R. No. 200403)
Facts:
In Perpetua Vda. de Ape v. Genorosa Cawit Vda. de Lumayno (G.R. No. 133638, April 15, 2005), Cleopas Ape died in 1950 owning Lot No. 2319 in Escalante, Negros Occidental, which passed to his widow and eleven children, including Fortunato Ape. On April 11, 1971, respondent Generosa Cawit de Lumayno and her late husband entered into a purported receipt-style agreement with Fortunato for the sale of his 1/11 undivided share for ₱5,000, of which ₱30 was paid. When Fortunato refused to execute a formal deed of sale or accept full payment, Generosa sued in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (later the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, San Carlos City) for specific performance, damages, litigation expenses, attorney’s fees, and costs. Fortunato and his wife Perpetua (petitioner) denied the sale, alleged forgery, counterclaimed for annulment of an alleged lease, and asserted the right of redemption over portions sold by other co-owners. The trial court dismissed both complaCase Digest (G.R. No. 200403)
Facts:
- Title and ownership
- Cleopas Ape was registered owner of Lot No. 2319, Escalante Cadastre, covered by OCT No. RP-1379.
- Upon his death in 1950, the property passed to his widow, Maria Ondoy, and their eleven children, including Fortunato Ape.
- Transaction and lawsuit
- On April 11, 1971, Generosa Cawit de Lumayno allegedly paid ₱30.00 as advance on a ₱5,000.00 sale of Fortunato’s one-eleventh share, evidenced by a handwritten “receipt” (Exh. G).
- When Fortunato allegedly refused to execute the final deed of sale, Generosa sued in 1973 for specific performance, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.
- Contentions and trial evidence
- Defendants (Fortunato and Perpetua) denied any sale, claimed forgery of signature, and counterclaimed for annulment of a 1960 lease and attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages.
- Plaintiffs (Generosa and husband) maintained they bought the shares of Fortunato’s co-owners, annotated an adverse claim on the title, had the lot surveyed, and produced photographs showing boundary markers.
- Fortunato died before final judgment and was substituted by his children.
- Lower court decisions
- RTC (1994) dismissed both complaint and counterclaim, ruling no proof of full payment and thus no right to specific performance; allowed registration of co-owners’ deeds.
- CA (1998) reversed as to complaint—ordering Fortunato (or clerk) to execute deed of sale for his 1/11 share—and affirmed dismissal of counterclaim on redemption, holding notice requirement satisfied by adverse-claim annotation and period lapsed.
Issues:
- Right of legal redemption
- Whether Fortunato (and successors) received the written notice of sale required by Article 1623, Civil Code.
- Whether co-ownership continued or was extinguished by informal partition, affecting redemption.
- Validity and enforceability of alleged sale contract
- Whether the April 11, 1971 receipt (Exhibit G) constitutes a binding contract of sale with meeting of minds on object and price.
- Whether consent was vitiated because Fortunato, being illiterate and unable to read English, was not fully informed of the document’s contents (Art. 1332, Civil Code).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)