G.R. No. 161027 Case Digest

G.R. No. 161027, June 22, 2009

Francisco Calma

vs Arsenio Santos, et. al.

Ponente: Nachura

Facts:

The subject property of this case is the Calangain Fishpond registered in the names of Celestino Santos, a widower and his children. When Celestino died, Calma purchased some shares from the fishpond.

Calma then demanded from the co-owners of the property the identification and segregation of the shares he purchased from the rest of the fishpond. Due to the failure of the heirs to do so, Calma filed a complaint for specific performance and partition before RTC Pampanga.

In their answers, the heirs admitted the existence of the deed of sale and other agreements covering the sale but they alleged that (1) the deeds were suffering from insidious, grave and vital defects. (2) Celistino Santos and Jose Santos have already sold their shares before their death. (3) Calma has been delinquent for many years in the payment of the lease rentals. (4) herein petitioner has abused his rights as lessee by subleasing portions of the Calangain Fishpond to other persons; (5) The herein petitioner’s rights as lessee over the Calangain Fishpond had already expired; (6) The herein petitioner has no cause of action for partition against the herein respondents, as not all the persons who have an interest in the Calangain Fishpond were impleaded as parties in this action; (7) With respect to the shares of Celestino Santos, Jose Santos and Leonardo Santos, the herein respondent Arsenio Santos has prior right thereto superior to that of the herein petitioner; and (8) The herein respondents Arsenio Santos, Natividad Santos, Ligaya Santos and Erlinda Santos have a right of legal redemption over the undivided shares of the Calangain Fishpond sold to the herein petitioner.

RTC ruled in favor of Calma. Respondents appealed to the CA. CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision.

Held:

After evaluating the foregoing circumstances, we are of the opinion that they are not sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in favor of the validity of the questioned Deed.  First, notwithstanding the first three circumstances mentioned, petitioner failed to clearly establish that, at the time the Deed was executed, Celestino was no longer capable of entering into any transaction regarding his share of the Fishpond.  Even if it is true that Celestino did not personally appear before the notary public in Quezon City, as claimed by petitioner, this alone does not nullify or render the parties’ transaction void ab initio.  It does not overcome the presumption of truthfulness of the statements contained in the notarized document.

However, the other conveyances covered by the deeds of absolute sale and the receipts of payment in favor of petitioner involving the shares of the Santos siblings in their own right cannot be voided.  Article 493 of the Civil Code provides that “(e)ach co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved.…”  Thus, the co-owners, being owners of their respective aliquots or undivided shares in the subject property,   can validly and legally dispose of their shares even without the consent of all the other co-heirs.  Accordingly, the vendors, co-heirs of respondents, should return whatever amount they received from petitioner corresponding to the 1/2 share of Celestino, which they were supposed to have inherited and sold to petitioner, had Celestino not disposed of this 1/2 share to respondent Arsenio. 

Interpreting this provision, we have enumerated the requisites for the exercise of legal redemption, as follows: (1) there must be co-ownership; (2) one of the co-owners sold his right to a stranger; (3) the sale was made before the partition of the co-owned property; (4) the right of redemption must be exercised by one or more co-owners within a period of thirty days to be counted from the time he or they were notified in writing by the co-owner vendor; and (5) the vendee must be reimbursed the price of the sale.