CASE # 19 - NOMBRE

LUZ CARO, vs. COURT OF APPEALS et al. (G.R. No. L-46001)

March 25, 1982; GUERRERO, J.:
FACTS:
The subject parcel of land was covered by three TCTs (Registered with the Registry of Sorsogon) and co owned by three brothers namely, Alfredo, Mario and Benjamin, all with surname Benito. Mario, died,
leaving his wife Basilia Lahorra and his father Saturnino Benito, subsequently, they were appointed as
administrators for Marios estate in lieu through a special proceeding. Benjamin Benito, one of the coowners,executed a deed of absolute sale of his one-third undivided portion over said parcels of land in
favor of herein petitioner, Luz Caro. This was registered on September 29, 1959. Then, with the consent
of Saturnino Benito and Alfredo Benito a subdivision title was issued to petitioner Luz Caro over the said
lot. However, Lahorra, upon knowing in the special proceeding that the petitioner acquired by purchase
from Benjamin Benito the aforesaid one-third undivided share in each of the two parcels of land, sent a
letter to Caro for the redemption of the land purchased but the she was ignored. Basilia then intervened in
the civil case of Rosa Amador vda De Benito vs. Luz Caro for annulment of sale and mortgage and
cancellation of the annotation of the sale and mortgage involving same parcels of land, but it was
dismissed for failure to prosecute and to pay docket fees.
Private respondent, thus, filed the present case as an independent one and in the trial sought to prove that
as a joint administrator of the estate of Mario Benito, she had not been notified of the sale as required by
Article 1620 in connection with Article 1623 of the New Civil Code.
Caro presented secondary evidence of service of written notice to possible redemptioners. Petitoner
claimed that written notices were sent to Alfredo and Saturnino. Those documents could have been the
best evidence. Nevertheless, it cannot be presented because Alfredo and Saturnino were already dead
when the complaint for legal redemption was brought. In lieu of such, what was presented by the
petitioner was the Affidavit of Benjamin Benito, ante lite motam, attesting to the fact that the possible
redemptioners were formally notified in writing of his intention to sell his undivided share. The
deposition of Saturnino's widow was likewise taken and introduced in evidence, she testified that she
received and gave Saturnino the written notice of intended sale and Saturnino expressed his disinterest in
buying the property. After hearing the evidence, the trial judge dismissed the complaint on the grounds
that: (a) private respondent, as administratrix of the intestate estate of Mario Benito, does not have the
power to exercise the right of legal redemption, and (b) Benjamin Benito substantially complied with his
obligation of furnishing written notice of the sale of his one-third undivided portion to possible
redemptioners. Private respondents motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, she appealed to the
Court of Appeals with an additional contention that Judge should have inhibited himself, his son being an
associate/member of law office of Caro's lawyer.
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor Basilia and provided the following statements:

a) That it is within the judge's discretion to disqualify himself, besides, no showing that Basilia
asked for the Judge's disqualification;
b) That the right to redeem arose after death of Mario, so it's not part of the hereditary estate but a
personal right of the heirs which would include the widow;
c) That the deed of sale statement of the seller saying that the other co-owners declined to buy was a
unilateral statement, not a proof of notice required by law;
d) That Registration of deed of sale did not erase right to redeem of other heirs who did not receive
notice and;
e) Affidavits attesting to notice would not show that there was clear notice given. Saturnino's
unilateral act as co-administrator can't bind his co-administrator who has right to redeem
personally as heir.
In summary, it was declared that Basilla still has the right of legal redemption. By this reason,
Caro appealed but was likewise denied. Thus, this present petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not Basilia, as administrator of Marios estate, could exercise the right of redemption.
HELD: No, the right of legal redemption cannot be exercised after partition. The Court is premised on
the fact that the lot in question sought to be redeemed is no longer owned in common. However, the fact
is that as early as 1960, co-ownership of the parcels of land covered by two Transfer Certificates of Title
was terminated when Alfredo Benito, Luz Caro and the Intestate Estate of Mario Benito, represented by
administrators Saturnino Benito, as trustee and representative of the heirs of Mario Benito, agreed to
subdivide the property. It has been held in the case of Hernandez vs. Andal that An agreement of
partition, though oral, is valid and consequently binding upon the parties. The intention of the parties for
the segregation of the land formerly owned in common was evidenced by the affidavits of Alfredo and
Saturnino Beneto and hence, a subdivision plan was made and by common agreement thereof, the area of
163 hectares, more or less, was ceded to petitioner. Thereafter, the co-owners took actual and exclusive
possession of the specific portions respectively assigned to them. Consequently, a subdivision title was
issued on the lot assigned to petitioner.
The court ruled taking as a basis the case of Caram, et al. vs. Court of Appeals even though this case
refers to the conveyance made after the partitions. Said case stated that Once a property subdivided and
distributed among the co-owners, the community has terminated and there is no reason to sustain any
right of legal redemption. The purpose of such is to reduce the number of participants until the
community is done away with. The Court also added that legal redemption would not still be allowed with
respect to conveyance before the partition agreement and approval of the court.
As aforesaid, a subdivision title has been issued in the name petitioner on the lot ceded to her. Upon the
expiration of the term of one year from the date of the entry of the subdivision title, the Certificate of Title

shall be incontrovertible (Section 38, Act 496). Since the title of petitioner is now indefeasible, private
respondent cannot, by means of the present action, directly attack the validity thereof.
Even assuming that redemption exists, private respondent as administratrix, has no personality to exercise
said right for and in behalf of the intestate estate of Mario Benito. She is on the same footing as coadministrator Saturnino Benito. Hence, if Saturnino's consent to the sale of the one-third portion to
petitioner cannot bind the intestate estate of Mario Benito on the ground that the right of redemption was
not within the powers of administration, in the same manner, private respondent as co-administrator has
no power exercise the right of redemption the very power which the Court of Appeals ruled to be not
within the powers of administration.
Sec. 3, Rule 85, Rules of Court, the administrator has the right to the possession of the real and personal
estate of the deceased, so far as needed for the payment of the expenses of administration, and the
administrator may bring and defend action for the recovery or protection of the property or right of the
deceased (Sec. 2, Rule 88), such right of possession and administration do not include the right of legal
redemption of the undivided share sold to a stranger by one of the co-owners after the death of another,
because in such case, the right of legal redemption only came into existence when the sale to the stranger
was perfected and formed no part of the estate of the deceased co-owner; hence, that right cannot be
transmitted to the heir of the deceased co-owner. (Butte vs. Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc., 4 SCRA 526).
Basilia cannot be considered to have brought this action in her behalf and in behalf of the heirs of
Mario Benito because the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint specifically stated that she brought
the action in her capacity as administratrix of the intestate estate of Mario Benito.