Title
Castillo vs. Samonte
Case
G.R. No. L-13146
Decision Date
Jan 30, 1960
A co-heir, unaware of a sale, successfully exercised his right to redeem inherited property under civil code provisions, though attorney's fees were disallowed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 101858)

Factual Background

The case revolves around a dispute over unregistered residential land in Bambang, Bulacan, originally owned by Romualda Meneses, who passed away leaving her estate to her compulsory heirs, including Valentin Castillo. The heirs did not partition the estate. One heir, Gregorio Castillo, sold his undivided interest in the property to Arturo Samonte without notifying the other co-heirs. Valentin Castillo learned of the sale in September 1956 and sought to redeem the property.

Trial Court's Findings

The trial court ruled in favor of Valentin Castillo, ordering Arturo Samonte to reconvey the property to him upon payment of the P1,000.00 sale price and awarding attorney's fees. Samonte appealed, raising several errors regarding the inclusion of Gregorio Castillo as a party and Valentin Castillo's right to redeem the property.

Inclusion of the Vendor in the Case

The appellate court found that the trial court was not obligated to include Gregorio Castillo as a party in the case. Although he was a necessary party due to his role as the vendor, he was not indispensable for adjudicating the matter. Samonte, as the purchaser, was considered to have knowledge of the right of redemption by the co-heirs, thereby affirming Valentin Castillo’s position in the appeal.

Right to Redemption Under Article 1088

In assessing the right to redemption, the appellate court noted that Article 1088 of the New Civil Code gives co-heirs the right to redeem inherited rights sold to a third party. The court agreed that Valentin Castillo had the right to redeem when he learned of the sale, as he was not given written notice by Gregorio Castillo. The court distinguished between registered and unregistered land, stating that the legal notice provisions applied only to registered land and that the absence of written notice barred Samonte's argument on the sufficiency of the registration as notice.

Timing of Redemption Offer

The case highlighted that upon learning of the sale, Valentin Castillo promptly offered to redeem the property within the 30-day period prescribed by law. The court clarified that regardless of the time elapsed before filing the complaint, offering to redeem within the stipulated timeframe established his right to pursue legal action.

Award of Attorney’s Fees

In reviewing the award of attorney's fees to Valentin Castillo, the appellate court found that the trial court failed to provide justifiable reasons for this award, as required under Article 2208 of the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.