G.R. No. L-48457 - Herdez vs. Quitain

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48457)

Factual Background

Perla Hernandez purchased a parcel of land measuring 46.40 square meters in the poblacion of Baleno, Masbate, from Sancho Manlapaz for P3,000.00. The lot originally formed part of a larger parcel inherited from the deceased spouses Crispulo Manlapaz and Antonia Villanueva and, on December 30, 1974, their children executed an extrajudicial partition by which each heir received a determined portion of the original tract. By virtue of that partition, the lot in dispute was adjudicated to Sancho, while an adjacent portion was adjudicated to Jose, who later sold his portion to Ernesta M. Valdemoro.

Procedural History

On April 29, 1975, Ernesta M. Valdemoro filed a complaint seeking legal redemption of the lot purchased by Perla Hernandez, deposited P3,000.00 with the trial court as the redemption price, and alleged lack of notice by Sancho of the sale. Perla Hernandez answered, denying the right to redeem on the ground that the prior extrajudicial partition had terminated co-ownership. The parties stipulated certain facts at pretrial, including the existence of the partition and the adjudication to Sancho. The trial court rendered judgment on December 15, 1975, declaring the plaintiff entitled to redeem and ordering resale to plaintiff for P3,000.00. A motion for reconsideration was denied, and the present petition for review on certiorari followed.

Trial Court's Ruling

The trial court applied Art. 1620 and Art. 1623 of the Civil Code and held that Ernesta M. Valdemoro, as a co-owner, had the right of legal redemption when a co-owner sold his share to a third person. The court ordered Perla Hernandez to resell the property to the plaintiff for P3,000.00 and awarded no litigation expenses or attorney’s fees.

Contentions of the Parties

Perla Hernandez contended that the extrajudicial partition prior to her purchase extinguished co-ownership and therefore Art. 1620 and the right of legal redemption did not apply. Ernesta M. Valdemoro maintained her right to redeem as a co-owner and alternatively advanced a theory under Art. 1622 that, as an adjoining owner, she had a right of preemption because the lot was urban, small in area (46.40 square meters), and bought merely for speculation. Ernesta also asserted that delay in transmission of the record on appeal to the Supreme Court warranted dismissal of the appeal.

Issues Presented

The dispositive issues were whether the right of legal redemption under Art. 1620 continued to exist after an extrajudicial partition that adjudicated specific portions to the heirs; whether Art. 1622 furnished an alternative right of preemption to the adjoining owner given the lot’s size and alleged speculation; and whether an undue delay in the transmission of the record on appeal required dismissal.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Court began by identifying the basis of the right of legal redemption in Art. 1620 as the existence of co-ownership as defined in Art. 484 of the Civil Code. The Court recalled that co-ownership presupposes an undivided interest or a “spiritual part” of a thing not physically divided and cited De la Cruz v. Cruz to the effect that when portions are concretely determined and identifiable, co-ownership in its real sense no longer exists and legal redemption among co-owners is inapplicable. Applying that doctrine to the stipulated facts and the annexed evidence showing subdivision and possession by the heirs, the Court concluded that co-ownership had ceased upon the extrajudicial partition and, consequently, Art. 1620 did not authorize redemption by Ernesta.

Application of Precedent and Alternative Claim

The Court surveyed its prior pronouncements, including Caro v. Court of Appeals and earlier authorities, that the purpose of legal redemption among co-owners is to reduce the number of participants until the community is terminated, and that once the property has been subdivided and distributed, the rationale for legal redemption disappears. The Court rejected Ernesta’s secondary reliance on Art. 1622 because she failed to allege or prove the essential element that the land was about to be resold or that resale had been perfected, a requirement the Court has enforced in Soriente v. Court of Appeals and De Santos v. City of Manila. The Court further observed that even on the pleadings Ernesta did not establish the other elements necessary under Art. 1622.

Procedural Objection as to Delay in Transmission

Addressing the contention that the delayed receipt of the record on appeal required dismissal, the Court held that the cited provision of the old Rules of Court was directory, not mandatory, and that Ernesta waived earlier opportunity to move for dismis

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-48457)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Perla Hernandez, Petitioner, bought the subject lot and was the defendant in the trial court action.
Ernesta M. Valdemoro, private respondent, sued in the Court of First Instance of Masbate, Branch II to redeem the lot and was the plaintiff below.
The trial court in Civil Case No. 464-II rendered judgment on 15 December 1975 allowing private respondent to redeem the lot and ordered re-sale to her for P3,000.00.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on the lower court level, after which she brought this petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Cortes, J. authored the Supreme Court decision, and Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, and Bidin, JJ. concurred.

Key Factual Allegations

The disputed lot measured 46.40 square meters and was originally part of a larger property inherited from the spouses Crispulo Manlapaz and Antonia Villanueva.
The heirs executed an extrajudicial partition on 30 December 1974, and each heir was adjudicated a definite portion.
Sancho Manlapaz, who had been adjudicated the lot in question, sold it to Petitioner on 8 March 1975 for P3,000.00.
Jose Manlapaz, whose portion abutted Sancho's, sold his portion to private respondent Ernesta M. Valdemoro on 8 April 1975.
Private respondent filed a complaint for redemption on 29 April 1975, deposited P3,000.00 with the trial court, and alleged lack of notice of Sancho's sale.
The parties stipulated at pre-trial that the property had been inherited, partitioned, adjudicated to Sancho, sold to Petitioner, and that the involved lots were "two (2) lots distance" from private respondent's property.

Issues

Whether private respondent could exercise the right of legal redemption under Art. 1620 and Art. 1623 of the Civil Code after a prior extrajudicial partition.
Whether private respondent could alternatively claim a right of pre-emption as an adjoining owner under Art. 1622 of the Civil Code.
Whether the delayed receipt of the record on appeal by the Supreme Court warranted dismissal of the appeal.

Statutory Framework

Art. 1620 of the Civil Code grants a co-owner the right of redemption when shares of other co-owners are sold to a third person and limits payment where the alienation price is grossly excessive.
Art. 1623 of the Civil Code requires exercise of the right of legal pre-emption or redemption within thirty days from written notice and conditions recordation of the deed upon an affidavit that written notice was given to all possible redemptioners.
Art. 1622 of the Civil Code gives an adjoining owner a right of pre-emption in respect of a small urban lot bought for speculation when the lot is about to be resold or resale has been perfected.
Article 484 of the Civil Code defines co-ownership as ownership of an undivided thing or right belonging to different persons, which is the foundational basis for Art. 1620.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner contended that the prior extrajudicial partition terminated co-ownership and thereby extinguished any right of legal redemption under Art. 1620.
Private respondent contended that she remained a co-owner entitled to redee