8/9/2019 02.b. Caro vs. CA [G.R. No. L-46001]

1/6

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-46001 March 25, 1982

LUZ CARO, petitioner,vs.ONORA!LE COURT O" APPEALS a#$ !AS%L%A LAORRA &'A. 'E !EN%TO, ASA'M%N%STRATR%( O" TE %NTESTATE ESTATE O" MAR%O !EN%TO, respondents.

 

GUERRERO, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule ! of the Revised Rules of "ourt see#in$ a revie% of thedecision of the "ourt of &ppeals, 1 pro'ul$ated on Februar( )), )*++, in "&-.R. No. !!+/R entitled01asilia 2ahorra Vda. de 1enito, as &d'inistratri3 of the Intestate 4state of Mario 1enito vs. 2u5 "aro0, as%ell as the resolution of the respondent "ourt, dated Ma( )6, )*++, den(in$ petitioner7s Motion forReconsideration.

The facts of the case are as follo%s8

 &lfredo 1enito, Mar)o !*#)+o and 1en9a'in 1enito %ere the ori$inal coo%ners of t%o parcels ofland covered b( Transfer "ertificates of Title Nos. T:/* and T:)/ of the Re$istr( of Deeds ofSorso$on. Mario died so'eti'e in ;anuar(, )*!+. of the "ourt

of First Instance of Sorso$on as 9oint ad'inistrators of Mario7s estate.

On &u$ust :, )*!*, one of the coo%ners, 1en9a'in 1enito, e3ecuted a deed of absolute sale of hisonethird undivided portion over said parcels of land in favor of herein petitioner, 2u5 "aro, for thesu' of P)/,///.//. This %as re$istered on Septe'ber *, )*!*. Subse=uentl(, %ith the consent ofSaturnino 1enito and &lfredo 1enito as sho%n in their affidavits both dated Septe'ber )!, )*:/,43hibits - and F respectivel(, a subdivision title %as issued to petitioner 2u5 "aro over 2ot I",under T.".T. No. T*+>.

So'eti'e in the 'onth of Ma(, )*::, private respondent 1asilia 2ahorra Vda. de 1enito learnedfro' an alle$ation in a pleadin$ presented b( petitioner in Special Proceedin$ No. !/> that the latterac=uired b( purchase fro' 1en9a'in 1enito the aforesaid onethird undivided share in each of the

t%o parcels of land. &fter further verification, she sent to petitioner thru her counsel, a %ritten offer toredee' the said onethird undivided share dated &u$ust !, )*::. Inas'uch as petitioner i$noredsaid offer, private respondent sou$ht to intervene in "ivil "ase No. )/! entitled 0Rosa &'ador Vda.de 1enito vs. 2u5 "aro0 for annul'ent of sale and 'ort$a$e and cancellation of the annotation of thesale and 'ort$a$e involvin$ the sa'e parcels of land, but did not succeed as the principal case %asdis'issed on a technicalit(, that is, for failure to prosecute and the proposed intervenor failed to pa(the doc#etin$ fees. Private respondent, thus, filed the present case as an independent one and inthe trial sou$ht to prove that as a 9oint ad'inistrator of the estate of Mario 1enito, she had not beennotified of the sale as re=uired b( &rticle ):/ in connection %ith &rticle ):6 of the Ne% "ivil "ode.

)

8/9/2019 02.b. Caro vs. CA [G.R. No. L-46001]

2/6

On the other hand, petitioner presented durin$ the hearin$ of the case secondar( evidence of theservice of %ritten notice of the intended sale to possible rede'ptioners in as 'uch as the bestthereof, the %ritten notices itself sent to and Saturnino 1enito, could not be presented for the reasonthat said notices %ere sent to persons %ho %ere alread( dead %hen the co'plaint for le$alrede'ption %as brou$ht. Instead, the affidavit of 1en9a'in 1enito, e3ecuted ante litemmotam, attestin$ to the fact that the possible rede'ptioners %ere for'all( notified in %ritin$ of his

intention to sell his undivided share, %as presented in evidence. The deposition of Saturnino7s %ido%%as li#e%ise ta#en and introduced in evidence, %herein she testified that she received and $ave toher husband the %ritten notice of the intended sale but that the latter e3pressed disinterest in bu(in$the propert(.

 &fter hearin$ the evidence, the trial 9ud$e dis'issed the co'plaint on the $rounds that8 ?a@ privaterespondent, as ad'inistratri3 of the intestate estate of Mario 1enito, does not have the po%er toe3ercise the ri$ht of le$al rede'ption, and ?b@ 1en9a'in 1enito substantiall( co'plied %ith hisobli$ation of furnishin$ %ritten notice of the sale of his onethird undivided portion to possiblerede'ptioners.

Private respondent7s Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court7s decision havin$ been denied, she

appealed to the respondent "ourt of &ppeals contendin$ that the trial ;ud$e erred in

I. . . not inhibitin$ hi'self fro' tr(in$ and decidin$ the case because his son is anassociate or 'e'ber of the la% office of &tt(. Rodolfo &. Madrid, the attorne( ofrecord of defendantappellee in the instant caseA

II. . contendin$ that 1en9a'in 1enito co'plied %ith the provisions of &rticle ):6 ofthe Revised "ivil "ode that before a coo%ner could sell his share of the propert(o%ned in co''on %ith the other coheirs, he 'ust first $ive %ritten notice of hisdesire to his coheirsA ?p. *, R.&.@

III. concludin$ that the fact that one of the ad'inistrators %ho %as activel( 'ana$in$the estate %as furnished a %ritten notice b( the coo%ner of his desire to sell hisshare %as enou$h co'pliance of the provisions of &rticle ):6 of the "ivil "ode forthe reason that the intention of the la% is onl( to $ive a chance to the ne% coo%nerto bu( the share intended to be sold if he desires to bu( the sa'eA ?p. !/, R.&.@

IV. . refusin$ to allo% plaintiff to redee' the sub9ect propert( upon authorit( of 1uttevs. Manuel B( C Sons, 2)!**, Feb. >, )*: ?p. !), R.&.@ and in conse=uentl(dis'issin$ the co'plaint ?p. !, R.&.@.

In disposin$ of the aforesaid errors, the "ourt of &ppeals findin$ for plaintiff ?herein privaterespondent@ held8

). That it is not clear that &tt(. &rcan$el, son of the trial ;ud$e, %as le$all( associated as practitioner

%ith counsel for 2u5 "aroA that it is not sho%n at an( rate that plaintiff had as#ed for ;ud$e &rcan$el7s dis=ualification and that at an( rate also, in such factual situation, an optional $round fordis=ualification is addressed to his sound discretion %ith %hich it %ould not be correct for appellatecourt to interfere or overrule.

. That since the ri$ht of the coo%ner to redee' in case his share be sold to a stran$er arose afterthe death of Mario 1enito, such ri$ht did not for' part of the hereditar( estate of Mario but instead%as the personal ri$ht of the heirs, one of %ho' is Mario7s %ido%. Thus, it behooved either the

8/9/2019 02.b. Caro vs. CA [G.R. No. L-46001]

3/6

vendor, 1en9a'in, or his vendee, 2u5 "aro, to have 'ade a %ritten notice of the intended orconsu''ated sale under &rticle ):/ of the "ivil "ode.

6. That the recital in the deed of sale that the vendor notified his coo%ners of his desire to disposeof his share, %ho all declined to bu(, %as but a unilateral state'ent and could not be proof of thenotice re=uired b( the la%.

. That the re$istration of the deed of sale did not erase that ri$ht.

!. That the affidavit of notice e3ecuted on ;anuar( /, )*:/ of 1en9a'in 1enito declarin$ that %rittennotices of the sale as re=uired b( la% %ere dul( sent to &lfredo 1enito and Saturnino 1enito, thelatter in his capacit( as ad'inistrator of the estate of Mario 1enito, as %ell as the s%orn state'ent of Saturnino 1enito7s %ido% dated Nove'ber )>, )*:> confir'in$ that her husband received the%ritten notice of the sale referred to in 1en9a'in 1enito7s affidavit of notice %ould not satisf( thatthere %as clear notice in %ritin$ of the specific ter' of the intended sale. orse, Saturnino %as onl(a coad'inistrator and hence, his unilateral act could not bind the principal because there %as noless than a renunciation of a ri$ht pertainin$ to the heirs, under &rticle )>)>, N"", apart fro' thefact that the ri$ht of rede'ption is not %ithin their ad'inistration.

:. That the further clai' of defendant that offer to redee' %as filed out of ti'e and that there %as noactual tender loses all i'portance, there bein$ no date fro' %hich to count the 6/da( period toredee' because there %as no notice $iven.

The dispositive part of the decision of the "ourt of &ppeals reads as follo%s8

IN VI4 T

8/9/2019 02.b. Caro vs. CA [G.R. No. L-46001]

4/6

 & coo%ner of a thin$ 'a( e3ercise the ri$ht of rede'ption in case the shares of allthe other coo%ners or an( of the', are sold to a third person. If the price ofalienation is $rossl( e3cessive, the petitioner shall pa( onl( a reasonable price.

Should t%o or 'ore coo%ners desire to e3ercise the ri$ht of rede'ption, the( 'a(onl( do so in proportion to the share the( 'a( respectivel( have in the thin$ o%ned

in co''on.

.

In Caram, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., )/) Phil. 6)!, a case s=uarel( in point, this "ourt held8

Inas'uch as the purpose of the la% in establishin$ the ri$ht of le$al rede'ptionbet%een coo%ners is to reduce the nu'ber of participants until the co''unit( isdone a%a( %ith ?Viola vs. Tecson, * Phil. >/>@, once the propert( is subdivided anddistributed a'on$ the coo%ners, the co''unit( has ter'inated and there is no

reason to sustain an( ri$ht of le$al rede'ption.

 &lthou$h the fore$oin$ pronounce'ent has reference to the sale 'ade after partition, this "ourttherein sa% no difference %ith respect to a conve(ance %hich too# place before the

 partition a$ree'ent and approval b( the court. Thus, it held8

Nevertheless, the result is the sa'e, because e held in Saturnino vs. Paulino, *+Phil. !/, that the ri$ht of rede'ption under &rticle )/:+ 'a( be e3ercised onl( before

 partition. In this case the ri$ht %as asserted not onl( after partition but after thepropert( inherited had actuall( been subdivided  into several parcels %hich %ereassi$ned b( lot to the several heirs.

In refutation, private respondent ar$ues that petitioner 2u5 "aro acted in bad faith and in fraud of theri$hts of the heirs of a deceased Mario 1enito in obtainin$ a subdivision title over a onethird portionof the land in =uestion %hich she brou$ht fro' 1en9a'in 1enito, and for this reason, she is dee'edto hold said propert( in trust for said heirs. The rule, ho%ever, is it fraud in securin$ the re$istration of titles to the land should be supported b( clear and convincin$ evidence. ?;ara'il vs. "ourt of

 &ppeals, +> S"R& /@. &s private respondent has not sho%n and proved the circu'stancesconstitutin$ fraud, it cannot be held to e3ist in this case.

8/9/2019 02.b. Caro vs. CA [G.R. No. L-46001]

5/6

 &s aforesaid, a subdivision title has been issued in the na'e petitioner on the lot ceded to her. Bponthe e3piration of the ter' of one (ear fro' the date of the entr( of the subdivision title, the "ertificateof Title shall be incontrovertible ?Section 6>, &ct *:@. Since the title of petitioner is no% indefeasible,private respondent cannot, b( 'eans of the present action, directl( attac# the validit( thereof.

4ven on the assu'ption that there still is coo%nership here and that therefore, the ri$ht of le$al

rede'ption e3ists, private respondent as ad'inistratri3, has no personalit( to e3ercise said ri$ht forand in behalf of the intestate estate of Mario 1enito. She is on the sa'e footin$ as coad'inistratorSaturnino 1enito.

8/9/2019 02.b. Caro vs. CA [G.R. No. L-46001]

6/6

'a#es capital of the ad'ission of private respondent that she alread( #ne% of the said transactioneven before receipt of the said pleadin$ ?t.s.n., p. ):@ as %ell as of the evidence presented thatSaturnino 1enito, the ad'ittedl( active ad'inistrator until )*::, dul( received a %ritten notice of theintended sale of 1en9a'in 1enito7s share. Said evidence consists of the affidavit of the vendorstatin$ that the re=uired notice had been dul( $iven to possible rede'ptioners, the state'ent in thedeed of sale itself and the deposition of Saturnino 1enito7s %ido% %ith respect to her receipt of the

%ritten notice. Finall(, petitioner points to the records %hich disclose that private respondent #ne% ofthe subdivision ?t.s.n., p. !@ and hence, rationali5ed that private respondent should have #no%nalso of the previous sale.

Since e have ruled that the ri$ht of le$al rede'ption does not e3ist nor appl( in this case becausead'ittedl( a subdivision title ?T.".T. No. T*+>@ has alread( been issued in the na'e of thepetitioner on 2ot I" sold to her, it beco'es 'oot and acade'ic, if not unnecessar( to decide%hether private respondent co'plied %ith the notice re=uire'ents for the e3ercise of the ri$ht ofle$al rede'ption under &rticle ):6 of the Ne% "ivil "ode.