Case Summary (G.R. No. 84324)
Petitioner
Luz Caro, who purchased one‑third undivided interest from co‑owner Benjamin Benito by deed of absolute sale (registered September 29, 1959) and later received a subdivision title in her name over Lot I‑C (T.C.T. No. T‑4978) after an agreed partition.
Respondent
Basilia Lahorra Vda. de Benito, administratrix of the intestate estate of Mario Benito, who sought to exercise the co‑owners’ right of legal redemption and to annul the sale on grounds of lack of proper written notice to possible redemptioners.
Key Dates
- Sale by Benjamin to Luz Caro: August 26, 1959 (registered September 29, 1959).
- Affidavits consenting to subdivision: September 15, 1960.
- Private respondent’s alleged knowledge and offer to redeem: learned in May 1966; written offer dated August 25, 1966.
- Court of Appeals decision (favorable to private respondent): February 11, 1977.
- Supreme Court decision reversing Court of Appeals: March 25, 1982.
Applicable Law and Legal Authorities
- New Civil Code: Article 1620 (right of a co‑owner to redeem) and Article 1623 (requirement of written notice to co‑owners) and Article 1818 (renunciation of rights).
- Rules of Court: Sections cited concerning powers of administrators (Rule 85, Sec. 3; Rule 88, Sec. 2).
- Act No. 496, Section 38 (one‑year period after issuance of a subdivision title renders the certificate of title incontrovertible).
- Precedents cited in the decision: Butte v. Manuel Uy & Sons; Caram v. Court of Appeals; Saturnino v. Paulino; Conejero v. Court of Appeals; Jaramil v. Court of Appeals.
Procedural History
Private respondent first attempted to intervene in Civil Case No. 2105 (annulment of sale and mortgage) but failed because the principal case was dismissed for failure to prosecute and for nonpayment of docket fees. She then filed an independent action alleging lack of compliance with statutory notice requirements for the sale and sought redemption. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding (a) the administratrix could not exercise the right of legal redemption, and (b) Benjamin Benito substantially complied with written notice requirements. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered redemption, prompting Supreme Court review by certiorari.
Trial Court Findings
The trial court dismissed the complaint on two grounds: (1) the administratrix lacked authority to exercise legal redemption for the intestate estate; and (2) the vendor had substantially complied with written notice obligations to possible redemptioners, evidenced by affidavit and testimony that notices were delivered to persons who later died.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ordered redemption, reasoning in key points: (1) no clear proof that the trial judge should have been disqualified on account of a familial association; (2) the right of redemption here arose after Mario’s death and was a personal right of the heirs (including the widow), thus requiring written notice to the heirs or their representative; (3) recitals in the deed alone are insufficient proof of compliance with Article 1623; (4) registration of the deed did not extinguish the redemption right; (5) affidavits and testimonial evidence presented by defendant were inadequate to establish proper written notice to the administratrix or heirs; and (6) absent notice, the 30‑day redemption period could not be computed.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 was exercisable with respect to the lots in question.
- Whether there was legally sufficient written notice such that the 30‑day redemption period was triggered.
Supreme Court Analysis — Effect of Partition and Issuance of Subdivision Title
The Court held that co‑ownership had been terminated by agreement of partition and subsequent issuance of a subdivision title (T.C.T. No. T‑4978) to petitioner. Citing precedents (e.g., Caram and Saturnino), the Court reiterated that the right of legal redemption exists to reduce co‑ownership participants and applies only while community/co‑ownership continues; once property is subdivided and allocated, the right of redemption no longer applies. The Court emphasized that an agreement of partition, even oral, is valid and that possession and assignment of specific lots, followed by issuance of a subdivision title, indicate termination of co‑ownership. Because subdivision and title issuance occurred, the substantive basis for Article 1620 redemption was absent.
Supreme Court Analysis — Assertion of Fraud and Trust Theory
Private respondent alleged bad faith and fraud in procuring the subdivision title, asking the Court to treat petitioner as holding the property in trust for the heirs. The Supreme Court required clear and convincing evidence to establish fraud in registration. Finding no such proof in the record and noting the issuance of a subdivision title, the Court declined to set aside the title. It further invoked Section 38 of Act 496: after one year from entry, the certificate of title becomes incontrovertible; petitioner’s title was therefore indefeasible.
Supreme Court Analysis — Capacity of Administratrix to Redeem
The Court addressed whether the administratrix could exercise the personal right of redemption purportedly belonging to the heirs. Relying on prior authority (Butte v. Manuel Uy and Sons), the Court explained that the right of redemption that arises after the death of a co‑owner is a personal right of the heirs, not an asset of the deceased’s estate. Consequently, such a right does not fall within the ordinary powers of administration and cannot be exercised by an administrator on behalf of the estate. Because private respondent brought the suit explicitly in her capacity as administratrix, the Court held she lacked the legal personality to assert the right of redemption on behalf of the heirs.
Supreme Court Analysis — Notice and 30‑Day Limit for Redemption (Moot)
Although the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 84324)
Nature of the Proceeding
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking review of the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. 52570-R, promulgated February 11, 1977, and the Court of Appeals resolution dated May 13, 1977 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- The petition challenges the reversal by the Court of Appeals of the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, and the CA’s order directing redemption upon payment or deposit of P10,000.00.
Parties
- Petitioner: Luz Caro (purchaser of an alleged one‑third undivided share).
- Private respondent: Basilia Lahorra Vda. de Benito, as administratrix of the intestate estate of Mario Benito.
- Respondent Court: Court of Appeals (first instance decision appealed to this Court via certiorari).
Relevant Titles and Parcels
- Original co‑owners of two parcels: Alfredo Benito, Mario Benito, and Benjamin Benito — titles covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-609 and T-610 (Registry of Deeds of Sorsogon).
- Subdivision title subsequently issued to petitioner over Lot I-C under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4978.
Pertinent Chronology of Facts
- Mario Benito died sometime in January, 1957.
- Mario’s wife Basilia Lahorra and his father Saturnino Benito were appointed as joint administrators in Special Proceeding No. 508 of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon.
- August 26, 1959: Benjamin Benito executed a deed of absolute sale of his one‑third undivided portion over the subject parcels in favor of petitioner Luz Caro for P10,000.00.
- September 29, 1959: Registration of the sale.
- January 20, 1960: An affidavit of notice executed by Benjamin Benito (described in the record) declaring written notices were sent to possible redemptioners.
- September 15, 1960: Affidavits of Alfredo Benito and Saturnino Benito (Exhibits F and G) consenting to subdivision; petition for subdivision filed; Lot I-C allotted to petitioner; subsequent issuance of T.C.T. No. T-4978 in petitioner’s name.
- May, 1966: Private respondent learned, via an allegation in a pleading in Special Proceeding No. 508, that petitioner had purchased Benjamin’s one‑third undivided share.
- August 25, 1966: Private respondent (through counsel) sent a written offer to redeem to petitioner which was ignored.
- November 18, 1968: Sworn statement of Saturnino Benito’s widow indicating she received and gave to Saturnino a written notice of the intended sale and that Saturnino expressed disinterest in buying.
Procedural History at Trial
- Private respondent filed an independent action seeking annulment of sale and related relief after an attempted intervention in Civil Case No. 2105 failed due to dismissal of the principal case and nonpayment of docketing fees by the proposed intervenor.
- At trial, petitioner introduced secondary evidence regarding service of written notice of intended sale (the best evidence unavailable because the original notices were allegedly sent to persons deceased at the time of the action).
- Evidence included: affidavit of Benjamin Benito (ante litem motam) attesting written notice had been given; deposition of Saturnino’s widow confirming receipt of written notice; recital in deed of sale that co‑owners were notified and declined to buy.
- Trial court dismissed the complaint on two grounds:
- (a) The administratrix (private respondent) did not have the power to exercise the right of legal redemption.
- (b) Benjamin Benito substantially complied with the obligation to furnish written notice of sale to possible redemptioners.
Trial Court’s Rationale
- The trial court accepted the evidence offered by petitioner as sufficient to show compliance with Article 1623 (notice requirement) and concluded the administratrix lacked authority to exercise the right of redemption.
Court of Appeals’ Decision and Rationale
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ordered redemption upon payment or deposit by plaintiff (private respondent) of P10,000.00 within 30 days after finality of judgment, directing defendant (petitioner) to execute a deed of redemption over Benjamin Benito’s one‑third share in favor of plaintiff and as representative of the children of Mario Benito; costs against defendant-appellee.
- Principal findings by the Court of Appeals included:
- The question of disqualification of the trial judge for association of his son with defense counsel was not clearly established and was discretionary.
- The right of co‑owners to redeem arose after Mario Benito’s death and was therefore the personal right of the heirs (including Mario’s widow), not part of Mario’s hereditary estate; accordingly either vendor Benjamin or vendee Luz Caro should have given written notice of intended/consummated sale under Article 1620.
- The recital in the deed of sale that co‑owners declined to buy was unilateral and insufficient proof of the required written notice.
- Registration of the deed of sale did not extinguish the right of redemption.
- The affidavit of notice (Jan. 20, 1960) and the widow’s sworn statement did not satisfy the requirement of clear written notice; Saturnino’s receipt did not bind the principal because he was only a co‑administrator and his unilateral act could not renounce rights of heirs under Article 1818, nor could administrators exercise the right of redemption as that right was not within administration.
- Without a clear date of notice, the 30-day redemption period could not be computed; therefore claims that redemption was filed late or without tender lost significance.