Case Summary (G.R. No. 133638)
Alleged Sale and Receipt of Advance Payment
On 11 April 1971, Generosa’s son‐in‐law prepared a receipt recording Fortunato’s acceptance of P30 as an advance against a P5,000 sale of his 1/11 share. Generosa demanded execution of a final deed, which Fortunato later refused.
Trial Court Proceedings and Decision
Generosa sued for specific performance, damages, litigation expenses, attorney’s fees, and costs. Fortunato and Perpetua denied the sale, claiming forgery, and counterclaimed to annul an alleged lease and assert a right of redemption over shares sold by other co‐owners. They invoked Article 1623’s 30‐day redemption period. The trial court:
• Dismissed Generosa’s complaint for failure to prove payment of the full purchase price (Art. 1350)
• Held no right of legal redemption due to lapse of the 30‐day period after knowledge of co‐heirs’ conveyances
• Ordered registration of deeds transferring other co‐heirs’ shares to Generosa
Court of Appeals Ruling
The appellate court reversed dismissal of Generosa’s complaint, finding the receipt valid as a binding contract manifesting an advance, and compelling execution of a deed of absolute sale of Fortunato’s share. It upheld dismissal of the counterclaim, deeming the adverse claim annotation on the second-owner title as constructive written notice to Fortunato, and concluded the redemption period had expired.
Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Whether Fortunato received the written notice required by Article 1623 to trigger redemption rights.
- Whether the P30 receipt constituted a valid contract of sale.
Right of Redemption Under Article 1623
Article 1623 mandates that a co‐owner’s redemption right be exercised within thirty days from written notice by the vendor. Jurisprudence confirms the vendor must originate the notice. Here, no vendor‐issued written notice of the co‐owners’ sales was furnished to Fortunato. Consequently, the 30‐day period never commenced.
Informal Partition and Extinguishment of Co‐ownership
Legal redemption presupposes ongoing co‐ownership at the time of conveyance. When heirs ascertain and possess distinct portions—even informally—co‐ownership ceases and redemption rights evaporate. Testimony and stipulations confirmed each heir, including Fortunato, occupied a specifically identified portion. Thus Lot No. 2319 had been informally partitioned, terminating any right of redemption.
Validity of the Contract of Sale and Vitiated Consent
A consensual contract of sale requires meeting of minds on object and price, and free, intelligent consent. Under Article 1332, when a party is illiterate, the contract’s terms must be fully explained. Generosa, as the party enforcing the receipt, bore the burden of p
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 133638)
Facts
- Cleopas Ape was the registered owner of Lot No. 2319, Escalante Cadastre, covered by OCT No. 1379.
- Upon his death in 1950, the property devolved to his widow Maria Ondoy and their eleven children, including Fortunato Ape.
- On April 11, 1971, Generosa Cawit de Lumayno and Fortunato purportedly agreed that for ₱5,000.00 Fortunato would sell his one-eleventh share of Lot 2319; a ₱30.00 advance was evidenced by a receipt (Exhibit G).
- Generosa sought to register the sale and demanded that Fortunato execute a formal deed of sale and accept the balance; Fortunato refused.
- Generosa and her husband Braulio Lumayno filed in 1973 a complaint for specific performance, damages, reimbursement of litigation expenses, attorney’s fees, and costs.
- Fortunato and Perpetua de Ape denied the sale, alleged forgery of the signature, and counterclaimed for annulment of an alleged lease (1960–1965, P100 annual), attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages.
- Generosa and her husband asserted that they had bought shares from Fortunato’s co-owners, causing an adverse claim annotation on the title and conducting a survey to define the parties’ respective portions.
- Fortunato died before trial and was substituted by eight of his children.
Proceedings Below
- The Regional Trial Court dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaim:
• It found that Generosa failed to prove payment of the ₱5,000.00 purchase price and thus had no right to specific performance (Civil Code, Art. 1350).
• It held that Fortunato and his successors’ right of redemption under Art. 1623 had laps