FIRST DIVISION On December 18, 1975, within the eight-year redemption

G.R. No. 162421 period, Bonifacio and Albino tendered their payment
NELSON CABALES and of P666.66 each to Dr. Corrompido. But Dr. Corrompido
RITO CABALES, only released the document of sale with pacto de
Petitioners, retro after Saturnina paid for the share of her deceased
Present: son, Alberto, including his vale of P300.00.
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, On even date, Saturnina and her four (4) children
- versus - CORONA, Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco and Leonora sold the
AZCUNA, and subject parcel of land to respondents-spouses Jesus
. and Anunciacion Feliano for P8,000.00. The Deed
COURT OF APPEALS, Promulgated: of Sale provided in its last paragraph, thus:
JESUS FELIANO and
ANUNCIACION FELIANO, It is hereby declared and understood
Respondents. August 31, 2007 that the amount of TWO THOUSAND TWO
HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX PESOS (P2,286.00)
corresponding and belonging to the Heirs of
DECISION Alberto Cabales and to Rito Cabales who are
still minors upon the execution of this
PUNO, C.J.: instrument are held
in trust by the VENDEE and to be paid and
delivered only to them upon reaching the age of
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the 21.
reversal of the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated
October 27, 2003, in CA-G.R. CV No. 68319 On December 17, 1985, the Register of Deeds of
entitled Nelson Cabales and Rito Cabales v. Jesus Southern Leyte issued Original Certificate of Title No.
Feliano and Anunciacion Feliano, which affirmed with 17035 over the purchased land in the names of
modification the decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of respondents-spouses.
Maasin, Southern Leyte, Branch 25, dated August 11,
2000, in Civil Case No. R-2878. The resolution of the On December 30, 1985, Saturnina and her four
Court of Appeals dated February 23, 2004, which denied (4) children executed an affidavit to the effect that
petitioners motion for petitioner Nelson would only receive the amount
reconsideration, is likewise herein assailed. of P176.34 from respondents-spouses when he reaches
the age of 21 considering that Saturnina paid Dr.
The facts as found by the trial court and the Corrompido P966.66 for the obligation of petitioner
appellate court are well established. Nelsons late father Alberto, i.e., P666.66 for his share in
the redemption of the sale with pacto de retro as well as
Rufino Cabales died on July 4, 1966 and left a his vale of P300.00.
5,714-square meter parcel of land located in Brgy. Rizal,
Sogod, Southern Leyte, covered by Tax Declaration No. On July 24, 1986, 24-year old petitioner Rito Cabales
17270 to his surviving wife Saturnina and children acknowledged receipt of the sum of P1,143.00 from
Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco, Leonora, Alberto and respondent Jesus Feliano, representing the formers
petitioner Rito. share in the proceeds of the sale of subject property.

On July 26, 1971, brothers and co-owners Bonifacio, In 1988, Saturnina died. Petitioner Nelson, then residing
Albino and Alberto sold the subject property to Dr. in Manila, went back to his fathers hometown
Cayetano Corrompido for P2,000.00, with right to in Southern Leyte. That same year, he learned from his
repurchase within eight (8) years. The three (3) siblings uncle, petitioner Rito, of the sale of subject property. In
divided the proceeds of the sale among themselves, 1993, he signified his intention to redeem the subject
each getting a share of P666.66. land during a barangay conciliation process that he
initiated.
The following month or on August 18, 1971, Alberto
secured a note (vale) from Dr. Corrompido in the amount On January 12, 1995, contending that they could
of P300.00. not have sold their respective shares in subject property
when they were minors, petitioners filed before the
In 1972, Alberto died leaving his wife and son, petitioner Regional Trial Court of Maasin, Southern Leyte, a
Nelson. complaint for redemption of the subject land plus
damages.
In their answer, respondents-spouses maintained that and succeeded him. Article 996 of the New Civil Code
petitioners were estopped from claiming any right over provides that [i]f a widow or widower and legitimate
subject property considering that (1) petitioner Rito had children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse
already received the amount corresponding to his share has in the succession the same share as that of each of
of the proceeds of the sale of subject property, and (2) the children. Verily, the seven (7) heirs inherited equally
that petitioner Nelson failed to consign to the court the on subject property. Petitioner Rito and Alberto,
total amount of the redemption price necessary for legal petitioner Nelsons father, inherited in their own rights
redemption. They prayed for the dismissal of the case on and with equal shares as the others.
the grounds of laches and prescription.
But before partition of subject land was effected,
No amicable settlement was reached at pre-trial. Trial Alberto died. By operation of law, his rights and
ensued and on August 11, 2000, the trial court ruled obligations to one-seventh of subject land were
against petitioners. It held that (1) Alberto or, by his transferred to his legal heirs his wife and his son
death, any of his heirs including petitioner Nelson lost petitioner Nelson.
their right to subject land when not one of them
repurchased it from Dr. Corrompido; (2) Saturnina was We shall now discuss the effects of the two (2)
effectively subrogated to the rights and interests of sales of subject land to the rights of the parties.
Alberto when she paid for Albertos share as well as his
obligation to Dr. Corrompido; and (3) petitioner Rito had The first sale with pacto de retro to Dr.
no more right to redeem his share to subject property as Corrompido by the brothers and co-owners Bonifacio,
the sale by Saturnina, his legal guardian pursuant to Albino and Alberto was valid but only as to their pro-
Section 7, Rule 93 of the Rules of Court, was perfectly indivisoshares to the land. When Alberto died prior to
valid; and it was shown that he received his share of the repurchasing his share, his rights and obligations were
proceeds of the sale on July 24, 1986, when he was 24 transferred to and assumed by his heirs, namely his wife
years old. and his son, petitioner Nelson. But the records show that
it was Saturnina, Albertos mother, and not his heirs, who
On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the repurchased for him. As correctly ruled by the Court of
decision of the trial court. It held that the sale by Appeals, Saturnina was not subrogated to Albertos or
Saturnina of petitioner Ritos undivided share to the his heirs rights to the property when she repurchased
property was unenforceable for lack of authority or legal the share.
representation but that the contract was effectively
ratified by petitioner Ritos receipt of the proceeds on July In Paulmitan v. Court of Appeals,[3] we held
24, 1986. The appellate court also ruled that petitioner that a co-owner who redeemed the property in its
Nelson is co-owner to the extent of one-seventh (1/7) of entirety did not make her the owner of all of it. The
subject property as Saturnina was not subrogated to property remained in a condition of co-ownership as the
Albertos rights when she repurchased his share to the redemption did not provide for a mode of terminating a
property. It further directed petitioner Nelson to pay the co-ownership.[4] But the one who redeemed had the right
estate of the late Saturnina Cabales the amount to be reimbursed for the redemption price and until
of P966.66, representing the amount which the latter reimbursed, holds a lien upon the subject property for
paid for the obligation of petitioner Nelsons late father the amount due.[5] Necessarily, when Saturnina
Alberto. Finally, however, it denied petitioner Nelsons redeemed for Albertos heirs who had then acquired
claim for redemption for his failure to tender or consign his pro-indiviso share in subject property, it did not vest
in court the redemption money within the period in her ownership over the pro-indiviso share she
prescribed by law. redeemed. But she had the right to be reimbursed for the
redemption price and held a lien upon the property for
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners the amount due until reimbursement. The result is that
contend that the Court of Appeals erred in (1) the heirs of Alberto, i.e., his wife and his son petitioner
recognizing petitioner Nelson Cabales as co-owner of Nelson, retained ownership over their pro-indiviso share.
subject land but denied him the right of legal redemption, Upon redemption from Dr. Corrompido, the
and (2) not recognizing petitioner Rito Cabales as co- subject property was resold to respondents-spouses by
owner of subject land with similar right of legal the co-owners. Petitioners Rito and Nelson were then
redemption. minors and as indicated in the Deed of Sale, their shares
in the proceeds were held in trust by respondents-
First, we shall delineate the rights of petitioners spouses to be paid and delivered to them upon reaching
to subject land. the age of majority.

When Rufino Cabales died intestate, his wife As to petitioner Rito, the contract of sale was
Saturnina and his six (6) children, Bonifacio, Albino, unenforceable as correctly held by the Court of
Francisco, Leonora, Alberto and petitioner Rito, survived
Appeals. Articles 320 and 326 of the New Civil authority.[11] Thus, when Saturnina, as legal guardian of
Code[6] state that: petitioner Rito, sold the latters pro-indiviso share in
subject land, she did not have the legal authority to do
Art. 320. The father, or in his so.
absence the mother, is the legal
administrator of the property pertaining to Article 1403 of the New Civil Code
the child under parental authority. If the provides, thus:
property is worth more than two thousand
pesos, the father or mother shall give a Art. 1403. The following contracts are
bond subject to the approval of the Court of unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
First Instance.
(1) Those entered into in the name of
Art. 326. When the property of the another person by one who has been given no
child is worth more than two thousand authority or legal representation, or who has
pesos, the father or mother shall be acted beyond his powers;
considered a guardian of the childs
property, subject to the duties and xxxx
obligations of guardians under the Rules of Accordingly, the contract of sale as to the pro-
Court. indiviso share of petitioner Rito was
In other words, the father, or, in his absence, the mother, unenforceable. However, when he acknowledged receipt
is considered legal administrator of the property of the proceeds of the sale on July 24, 1986, petitioner
pertaining to the child under his or her parental authority Rito effectively ratified it. This act of ratification rendered
without need of giving a bond in case the amount of the the sale valid and binding as to him.
property of the child does not exceed two thousand With respect to petitioner Nelson, on the other hand, the
pesos.[7] Corollary to this, Rule 93, Section 7 of the contract of sale was void. He was a minor at the time of
Revised Rules of Court of 1964, applicable to this case, the sale. Saturnina or any and all the other co-owners
automatically designates the parent as legal guardian of were not his legal guardians with judicial authority to
the child without need of any judicial appointment in alienate or encumber his property. It was his mother who
case the latters property does not exceed two thousand was his legal guardian and, if duly authorized by the
pesos,[8] thus: courts, could validly sell his undivided share to the
property. She did not. Necessarily, when Saturnina and
Sec. 7. Parents as guardians. the others sold the subject property in its entirety to
When the property of the child under respondents-spouses, they only sold and transferred title
parental authority is worth two thousand to their pro-indiviso shares and not that part which
pesos or less, the father or the mother, pertained to petitioner Nelson and his
without the necessity of court appointment, mother. Consequently, petitioner Nelson and his mother
shall be his legal guardian x x x x[9] retained ownership over their undivided share of subject
property.[12]
Saturnina was clearly petitioner Ritos legal guardian
without necessity of court appointment considering that But may petitioners redeem the subject land
the amount of his property or one-seventh of subject from respondents-spouses? Articles 1088 and 1623 of
property was P1,143.00, which is less than two thousand the New Civil Code are pertinent:
pesos. However, Rule 96, Sec. 1[10] provides that:
Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell
Section 1. To what guardianship shall his hereditary rights to a stranger before the
extend. A guardian appointed shall have the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be
care and custody of the person of his ward, subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by
and the management of his estate, or the reimbursing him for the price of the sale,
management of the estate only, as the case provided they do so within the period of one
may be. The guardian of the estate of a month from the time they were notified in writing
nonresident shall have the management of all of the sale by the vendor.
the estate of the ward within the Philippines,
and no court other than that in which such Art. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption
guardian was appointed shall have jurisdiction or redemption shall not be exercised except
over the guardianship. within thirty days from the notice in writing by the
prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the
Indeed, the legal guardian only has the plenary power of case may be. The deed of sale shall not be
administration of the minors property. It does not include recorded in the Registry of Property, unless
the power of alienation which needs judicial accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that
 he has given written notice thereof to all possible In the instant case, the right of redemption was
redemptioners. invoked not days but years after the sale was made in
1978. We are not unmindful of the fact that petitioner
The right of redemption of co-owners Nelson was a minor when the sale was
excludes that of adjoining owners. perfected. Nevertheless, the records show that in 1988,
petitioner Nelson, then of majority age, was informed of
Clearly, legal redemption may only be exercised by the the sale of subject property.Moreover, it was noted by
co-owner or co-owners who did not part with his or the appellate court that petitioner Nelson was likewise
their pro-indiviso share in the property held in informed thereof in 1993 and he signified his intention to
common. As demonstrated, the sale as to the undivided redeem subject property during a barangay conciliation
share of petitioner Rito became valid and binding upon process. But he only filed the complaint for legal
his ratification on July 24, 1986. As a result, he lost his redemption and damages on January 12, 1995, certainly
right to redeem subject property. more than thirty days from learning about the sale.

However, as likewise established, the sale as to In the face of the established facts, petitioner
the undivided share of petitioner Nelson and his mother Nelson cannot feign ignorance of the sale of subject
was not valid such that they were not divested of their property in 1978. To require strict proof of written notice
ownership thereto. Necessarily, they may redeem the of the sale would be to countenance an obvious false
subject property from respondents-spouses. But they claim of lack of knowledge thereof, thus commending the
must do so within thirty days from notice in writing of the letter of the law over its purpose, i.e., the notification of
sale by their co-owners vendors. In reckoning this redemptioners.
period, we held in Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate
Court,[13] thus: The Court is satisfied that there was sufficient
notice of the sale to petitioner Nelson. The thirty-day
x x x we test a law by its results; redemption period commenced in 1993, after petitioner
and likewise, we may add, by its purposes. It is Nelson sought the barangay conciliation process to
a cardinal rule that, in seeking the meaning of redeem his property. By January 12, 1995, when
the law, the first concern of the judge should be petitioner Nelson filed a complaint for legal redemption
to discover in its provisions the intent of the and damages, it is clear that the thirty-day period had
lawmaker. Unquestionably, the law should never already expired.
be interpreted in such a way as to cause
injustice as this is never within the legislative As in Alonzo, the Court, after due consideration
intent. An indispensable part of that intent, in of the facts of the instant case, hereby interprets the law
fact, for we presume the good motives of the in a way that will render justice.[15]
legislature, is to render justice.
Petitioner Nelson, as correctly held by the Court
Thus, we interpret and apply the of Appeals, can no longer redeem subject property. But
law not independently of but in consonance he and his mother remain co-owners thereof with
with justice. Law and justice are inseparable, respondents-spouses. Accordingly, title to subject
and we must keep them so. x x x x property must include them.

x x x x While we may not IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is

read into the law a purpose that is not there, we DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of the
nevertheless have the right to read out of it the Court of Appeals of October 27, 2003 and February 23,
reason for its enactment. In doing so, we defer 2004 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The
not to the letter that killeth but to the spirit that Register of Deeds of Southern Leyte is ORDERED to
vivifieth, to give effect to the lawmakers will. cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 17035 and to
issue in lieu thereof a new certificate of title in the name
In requiring written notice, Article of respondents-spouses Jesus and Anunciacion Feliano
1088 (and Article 1623 for that matter)[14]seeks for the 6/7 portion, and petitioner Nelson Cabales and
to ensure that the redemptioner is properly his mother for the remaining 1/7 portion, pro indiviso.
notified of the sale and to indicate the date of
such notice as the starting time of the 30-day SO ORDERED.
period of redemption.Considering the shortness
of the period, it is really necessary, as a
general rule, to pinpoint the precise date it is REYNATO S. PUNO
supposed to begin, to obviate the problem of Chief Justice
alleged delays, sometimes consisting of only a
day or two.