Case Summary (G.R. No. 219185)
Factual Background
Alfredo, Mario, and Benjamin Benito were original co-owners of two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. T-609 and T-610 in Sorsogon. Mario died in 1957, after which Basilia Lahorra (widow) and Saturnino Benito (father) were appointed as joint administrators of Mario’s estate. On August 26, 1959, Benjamin Benito sold his one-third undivided share in the parcels to Luz Caro for ₱10,000, the deed being registered the following month. In 1960, with the consent of Saturnino and Alfredo, a subdivision plan was approved, and a subdivision title (TCT No. T-4978) was issued to Luz Caro over Lot I-C, corresponding to the portion sold.
Procedural History and Issues
Basilia Lahorra learned in May 1966 of Luz Caro’s claim of purchase of Benjamin’s one-third share. She attempted, unsuccessfully, to intervene in a related case to annul the sale and mortgage on the same land parcels but failed due to procedural grounds. Subsequently, she filed the present suit to exercise the right of legal redemption based on alleged failure to notify her of the sale as required by Articles 1620 and 1623 of the New Civil Code. Luz Caro presented secondary evidence of written notice sent to possible redemptioners (Alfredo and Saturnino Benito), including affidavits and deposition testimony.
Trial Court's Ruling
The trial court dismissed the complaint on two grounds: (a) the administratrix lacked power to exercise the right of legal redemption as a representative of Mario’s estate, and (b) Benjamin Benito substantially complied with the statutory notice requirement by sending written notice to the possible redemptioners. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Court of Appeals’ Findings and Rationale
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ruled in favor of Basilia Lahorra, holding:
- There was no clear disqualification of the trial judge, and any alleged association with defense counsel was discretionary and not a ground for reversal.
- The right of legal redemption arose after Mario’s death and was thus a personal right of his heirs, not part of Mario’s estate. Therefore, notice of sale was required under Article 1620.
- The deed’s recital that co-owners had declined to buy was insufficient as proof of notice.
- The deed’s registration did not extinguish the redemption right.
- The affidavits and statements about notice did not conclusively prove valid notice to all interested parties, as the co-administrator’s unilateral acts could not bind all heirs, and the right of redemption was not within administrative powers.
- Since there was no proper notice, the period to exercise the right of redemption never commenced, rendering arguments about timeliness moot.
The Court of Appeals ordered Luz Caro to execute a deed of redemption of the one-third share to Basilia Lahorra upon payment of ₱10,000.
Supreme Court’s Analysis: Termination of Co-Ownership and Impact on Redemption Rights
The Supreme Court emphasized that co-ownership of the parcels was terminated by a subdivision agreement and actual partition in 1960, whereby Lots were distributed and titled accordingly. Based on precedent (Caram, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.), once the property is subdivided and distributed among co-owners, the legal community is dissolved, and the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 no longer applies. This right is premised on continuous co-ownership and is intended to reduce co-ownership participants, which no longer exists after partition.
On Allegation of Fraud in Obtaining Subdivision Title
The private respondent’s assertion of fraud against Luz Caro in acquiring the subdivision title lacked clear and convincing evidence, which is the standard required to invalidate title registrations under the Torrens system. Since the petitioner holds an indefeasible title duly issued and uncontested for more than one year as prescribed in Section 38, Act 496, indirect attacks on this title through an action for redemption are impermissible.
On Authority of the Administratrix to Exercise Redemption Rights
The Supreme Court held that the administratrix of the intestate estate does not have the legal personality or power to exercise the right of legal redemption in respect of the deceased’s share sold to a third party. Citing Butte vs. Manuel Uy and Sons, the redemption right arises upon sale to a stranger after death, does not form part of the deceased’s estate, and thus cannot be exercised by heirs’ representatives in their capacity as administrators. The complaint’s jurisdictional statement that the suit was filed in the capacity as administratrix confirme
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 219185)
Nature of the Case and Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court to review the Court of Appeals decision dated February 11, 1977, and its denial of the Motion for Reconsideration.
- The case centers on private respondent Basilia Lahorra, administratrix of the intestate estate of Mario Benito, seeking to exercise the right of legal redemption over a one-third undivided share sold by co-owner Benjamin Benito to petitioner Luz Caro.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of private respondent’s complaint, allowing redemption upon payment.
- Petitioner contests the existence and exercise of the right of legal redemption, the sufficiency and effect of notice, and the legality of the subdivision and issuance of title to petitioner.
Factual Background
- Alfredo Benito, Mario Benito, and Benjamin Benito were original co-owners of two parcels covered by TCT Nos. T-609 and T-610, Registry of Deeds of Sorsogon.
- Mario Benito died in January 1957; his wife Basilia Lahorra and father Saturnino Benito were appointed co-administrators of his intestate estate.
- On August 26, 1959, Benjamin Benito sold his one-third undivided interest in the parcels to Luz Caro for ₱10,000; the sale was registered on September 29, 1959.
- In 1960, with affidavits of consent from Alfredo and Saturnino Benito, a subdivision plan was executed resulting in issuance of TCT No. T-4978 to Luz Caro covering Lot I-C.
- In May 1966, private respondent learned via pleadings that Luz Caro had purchased Benjamin’s share.
- Private respondent sent an offer to redeem on August 25, 1966, which petitioner ignored.
- Private respondent attempted intervention in an unrelated case for annulment of sale and mortgage but failed due to procedural issues.
- Consequently, private respondent filed the present case for legal redemption alleging failure of the sellers to notify as required by Articles 1620 and 1623 of the Civil Code.
Issues Presented
- Whether the right of legal redemption exists in the context of subdivided property no longer held in co-ownership.
- Whether the private respondent as administratrix of the intestate estate has the legal personality to exercise the right of redemption.
- Whether the notice requirements under Article 1623 of the Civil Code were complied with to trigger the 30-day redemption period.
- Legality and binding effect of the subdivision and issuance of subdivision title to petitioner.
- The effect of alleged bad faith and fraud in the acquisition and registration of the subdivision title by petitioner.
Trial Court’s Findings and Ruling
- The trial court dismissed the complaint because:
- The administratrix lacked the power to exercise the right of legal redemption.
- Benjamin Benito substantially complied with the notice requirements by sending written notices to possible redemptioners.
- Motion for reconsideration denied.
Court of Appeals’ Findings and Judgment
- Rejected the claim that trial judge’s son’s association with petitioner’s counsel justified disqualification due to lack of proof and discretionary nature of su