Case Summary (G.R. No. 100210)
Key Individuals and Context
- Petitioners: Nelson Cabales and Rito Cabales (sons/heirs of Rufino Cabales’ family line).
- Respondents: Jesus Feliano and Anunciacion Feliano (purchasers of the disputed parcel).
- Other relevant persons: Rufino Cabales (decedent owner), Saturnina (widow of Rufino), Alberto (deceased son of Rufino and father of Nelson), and co-heirs Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco, Leonora.
- Property: 5,714-square meter parcel in Brgy. Rizal, Sogod, Southern Leyte (Tax Declaration No. 17270; Original Certificate of Title No. 17035 later issued to the Felianos).
- Procedural posture: Petition for review on certiorari from a Court of Appeals decision affirming with modification an RTC judgment; Supreme Court decision affirmed with modification, ordering reissuance of title reflecting co-ownership shares.
Key Dates
- July 4, 1966: Death of Rufino Cabales.
- July 26, 1971: Sale with pacto de retro by Bonifacio, Albino and Alberto to Dr. Cayetano Corrompido.
- August 18, 1971: Alberto took a P300 note from Dr. Corrompido.
- 1972: Death of Alberto.
- December 18, 1975: Bonifacio and Albino repurchased their shares; Saturnina repurchased Alberto’s share after paying outstanding obligations.
- December 18, 1975 (same date): Saturnina and four children sold the parcel to the Felianos; deed reserved certain proceeds for minor heirs held in trust.
- December 17, 1985: Certificate of Title issued in respondents’ names.
- July 24, 1986: Rito acknowledged receipt of P1,143.00 as his share.
- 1988–1995: Nelson learned of the sale (1988), sought barangay conciliation (1993), and filed suit (Jan 12, 1995).
Applicable Law and Authorities
- Articles 996, 1088, 1403, 1623, 1088, and other pertinent provisions of the New Civil Code (as applied in the decision).
- Rules of Court provisions governing guardianship and administration (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 93 Sec. 7; Rule 96 Sec. 1; Rule 95).
- Doctrine and precedents cited: Paulmitan v. Court of Appeals; Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court; related jurisprudence on redemption, subrogation, and ratification.
Factual Background
- Rufino died intestate, leaving seven equal heirs (wife and six children). Before partition took place, three co-owners (including Alberto) sold their pro indiviso shares to Dr. Corrompido with a right of repurchase. Alberto died before repurchase; his heirs (his wife and son Nelson) succeeded to his rights and obligations. Saturnina repurchased Alberto’s share by paying the amounts due, then, together with several co-heirs, sold the property to the Felianos and reserved certain proceeds for the then-minor heirs.
Heirs’ Shares and Succession Law
- Under Article 996, the surviving spouse and legitimate children inherit equal shares where both survive the decedent; thus the seven co-heirs held equal pro indiviso shares (one-seventh each). Alberto’s death required transmission of his rights and obligations to his heirs (wife and son Nelson), who retained his pro indiviso share absent valid alienation.
Effect of First Sale with Pacto de Retro and Saturnina’s Repurchase
- The initial sale with pacto de retro by three co-owners was valid as to their respective pro indiviso shares. Alberto’s pro indiviso share, however, passed by succession to his heirs upon his death. Saturnina’s act of redeeming Alberto’s share did not operate as subrogation that vested ownership in her over Alberto’s heirs’ share; redemption by another co-owner does not extinguish co-ownership but creates a right of reimbursement and a lien in favor of the redeemer. Therefore Alberto’s heirs retained ownership of his one-seventh share, while Saturnina obtained a right to reimbursement.
Sale to the Felianos and the Trust Clause
- The subsequent sale to the Felianos transferred only the pro indiviso shares that the vendors legally possessed and could alienate. The Deed of Sale included a specific clause that certain portions of proceeds attributable to the minor heirs (including Nelson and Rito) were to be held in trust by the vendees until the minors reached majority. The deed therefore acknowledged the minors’ interests and sought to address disbursement of sale proceeds.
Legal Capacity of Guardians to Alienate Minors’ Property
- Under the applicable Rules of Court and provisions of the New Civil Code, a parent acting as legal administrator or guardian may manage a child’s property but lacks plenary authority to alienate the child’s property unless judicial authorization is obtained when alienation exceeds statutory limits or when the law requires court appointment. Rule 93 Sec. 7 automatically designates a parent as legal guardian when the child’s property is worth two thousand pesos or less, but Rule 96 Sec. 1 and Rule 95 distinguish administrative powers from the power to alienate, which generally requires judicial authority.
Sale as to Rito’s Share: Unenforceable but Ratified
- Saturnina, acting as Rito’s parent and legal guardian under Rule 93, lacked authority to alienate Rito’s share without judicial authorization because the power to alienate is not included in plenary administration. Consequently, the sale as to Rito’s undivided one-seventh was unenforceable under Article 1403(1) for lack of legal representation or authority. Nonetheless, when Rito, as an adult, accepted and acknowledged receipt of his portion of the proceeds on July 24, 1986, he effectively ratified the sale, rendering it valid and binding as to him and extinguishing any right of legal redemption he might otherwise have had.
Sale as to Nelson’s Share: Void and Rights Retained
- Nelson was a minor at the time of the sale and neither his mother nor any other co-owner had judicial authority to alienate his undivided share. Saturnina’s payment to redeem Alberto’s share did not transfer Alberto’s heirs’ title to Saturnina. Therefore the purported sale to the Felianos was void as to Alberto’s heirs’ one-seventh share (Nelson and his mother), and they retained ownership of that pro indiviso share. Saturnina’s equitable right to reimbursement remained enforceable against the property or estate.
Right of Redemption and Statutory Period
- Legal redemption by co-heirs is governed by Articles 1088 and 1623, which require written notice of the sale and prescribe short periods (one month under Article 1088; thirty days under Article 1623) within which redemption must be exercised. The written-notice requirement serves to fix the commencement of the redemption period and prevent stale claims. A redemptioner must tender or consign the redemption price within the statutory period.
Application of Redemption Rules to Nelson
- Although Nelson was a minor at the time of the sale, the Court found that he had actual notice of the sale by 1988 and again in 1993 when he sought barangay conciliation to redeem the property. The Court applied equitable interpretation consistent with precedent (Alonzo) to avoid literalism that would enable false claims of ignorance; it held that the thirty-day redemption period commenced upon Nelson’s effective knowledge in 1993. Nelson did not tender or consign the redemption price nor file suit within the prescribed period, and thus he forfeited the right of legal redemption despite retaining title to his one-seventh share.
Court of Appeals’ Modifications and Supreme Court’s Concl
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 100210)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 27, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 68319, which affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court of Maasin, Southern Leyte, Branch 25 decision dated August 11, 2000 in Civil Case No. R-2878.
- The petition also assails the Court of Appeals resolution dated February 23, 2004 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court rendered judgment on August 31, 2007 (G.R. No. 162421), denying the petition and affirming with modification the Court of Appeals decision and resolution; ordered cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. 17035 and issuance of a new title reflecting ownership shares.
Facts (as found by the trial court and the appellate court)
- Rufino Cabales died on July 4, 1966, leaving a 5,714-square meter parcel of land in Brgy. Rizal, Sogod, Southern Leyte (Tax Declaration No. 17270) to his surviving wife Saturnina and six children: Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco, Leonora, Alberto and petitioner Rito.
- On July 26, 1971, co-owners Bonifacio, Albino and Alberto sold the subject property to Dr. Cayetano Corrompido for P2,000.00, with the right to repurchase within eight (8) years (sale with pacto de retro).
- The three siblings divided the proceeds, each receiving P666.66. On August 18, 1971, Alberto obtained a note ("vale") from Dr. Corrompido for P300.00.
- Alberto died in 1972, leaving his wife and son, petitioner Nelson, as his heirs. By operation of law Alberto’s rights and obligations to one-seventh of the land passed to his heirs.
- On December 18, 1975, within the eight-year period, Bonifacio and Albino tendered payment of P666.66 each to Corrompido. Corrompido released the document of sale with pacto de retro only after Saturnina paid for the share of her deceased son Alberto, including his P300 "vale."
- On the same date (December 18, 1975) Saturnina and four children (Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco and Leonora) sold the parcel to respondents-spouses Jesus and Anunciacion Feliano for P8,000.00.
- The Deed of Sale contained a provision: “It is hereby declared and understood that the amount of TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX PESOS (P2,286.00) corresponding and belonging to the Heirs of Alberto Cabales and to Rito Cabales who are still minors upon the execution of this instrument are held in trust by the VENDEE and to be paid and delivered only to them upon reaching the age of 21.”
- On December 17, 1985, Original Certificate of Title No. 17035 was issued in the names of respondents-spouses.
- On December 30, 1985, Saturnina and her four children executed an affidavit stating petitioner Nelson would receive P176.34 from respondents when he reached age 21, considering Saturnina had paid Dr. Corrompido P966.66 for Alberto’s obligations (P666.66 repurchase share plus P300 "vale").
- On July 24, 1986, 24-year-old petitioner Rito acknowledged receipt of P1,143.00 from respondent Jesus Feliano, representing his share of sale proceeds.
- Saturnina died in 1988. Petitioner Nelson, then residing in Manila, returned to Southern Leyte in 1988 and learned from his uncle (petitioner Rito) of the sale.
- In 1993 Nelson initiated a barangay conciliation process and signified his intention to redeem the land. On January 12, 1995, petitioners filed before the Regional Trial Court a complaint for redemption of the land plus damages.
- Respondents pleaded that petitioners were estopped: (1) Rito had received his share; (2) Nelson failed to consign to the court the total redemption price. Respondents also asserted laches and prescription.
Trial Court Findings and Rulings (Regional Trial Court, Maasin, Branch 25, Aug. 11, 2000)
- The trial court ruled against petitioners and held:
- Alberto, or by his death any of his heirs including petitioner Nelson, lost their right to the land when none repurchased his share from Dr. Corrompido.
- Saturnina was subrogated to Alberto’s rights and interests when she paid for Alberto’s share and his "vale" to Corrompido.
- Petitioner Rito had no right to redeem his share because the sale by Saturnina (as his legal guardian pursuant to Section 7, Rule 93, Rules of Court) was valid and because he received his share of proceeds on July 24, 1986, at age 24.
Court of Appeals Decision (Oct. 27, 2003; denial of reconsideration Feb. 23, 2004)
- The Court of Appeals modified the trial court decision and held:
- The sale by Saturnina of petitioner Rito’s undivided share was unenforceable for lack of authority or legal representation.
- However, Rito effectively ratified the sale by acknowledging and receiving the proceeds on July 24, 1986; such ratification rendered the sale valid and binding as to him.
- Petitioner Nelson is co-owner to the extent of one-seventh (1/7) of the land because Saturnina was not subrogated to Alberto’s rights when she repurchased his share.
- The Court of Appeals directed petitioner Nelson to pay the estate of the late Saturnina Cabales P966.66, representing the amount the latter paid for Alberto’s obligations.
- The Court of Appeals denied Nelson’s claim for legal redemption for failing to tender or consign the total redemption money in court within the period prescribed by law.
Issues Presented on Review to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in:
- Recognizing petitioner Nelson as co-owner of the land but denying him the right of legal redemption.
- Not recognizing petitioner Rito as co-owner with a similar right of legal redemption.
Applicable Law and Precedents Cited
- Article 996, New Civil Code: “[i]f a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the children.” (used to show equal inheritance among seven heirs)
- Articles 320 and 326, New Civil Code (as quoted in the decision):
- Art. 320: “The father, or in his absence the mother, is the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the child under parental authority. If the property is worth more than two thousand pesos, the father or mother shall give a bond subject to the approval of the Court of First Instance.”
- Art. 326: “When the property of the child is worth more than two thousand pesos, the father or mother shall be considered a guardian of the child’s property, subject to the duties and obligations of guardians under the Rules of