Villanueva v. Florendo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Macario Villanueva and Basilia Garcia owned a parcel of land. Basilia Garcia died intestate, leaving her husband Macario and their children (petitioners and respondent Concepcion Villanueva) as heirs. Before the property was partitioned, Macario Villanueva sold one-half of the lot to Erlinda Vallangca, wife of respondent Concepcion Villanueva, for P1,100.00. Petitioners sought to exercise their right of legal redemption, but Erlinda Vallangca refused, contending that as the wife of an heir, she was not a "third party" or "stranger" contemplated by law. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint for rescission of sale and legal redemption. The trial court rendered a decision ordering the reformation of the Deed of Sale (Exhibit "3") by deleting a specific phrase describing the western portion of the lot, declaring Erlinda Vallangca as absolute owner of one-half of the land, ordering the partition of the land among the heirs of Basilia Garcia, dismissing the counterclaim, and ordering the return of a P1,000.00 deposit. The trial court disallowed redemption, considering Erlinda Vallangca as a co-heir by virtue of her marriage to Concepcion Villanueva. The Petition: Petitioners sought review, arguing that the lower court erred in holding that the property was conjugal and that redemption would not lie against Erlinda Vallangca, asserting she was a "third person" or "stranger" under Article 1620 of the Civil Code. They also contended that the sale should have been annulled instead of reformed and that the order for partition was unwarranted given a pending partition action.
Issue(s)
Whether Erlinda Vallangca, by virtue of her marriage to an heir, is considered a "third person" or "stranger" within the meaning of Article 1620 of the Civil Code, thereby allowing the exercise of legal redemption. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the reformation of the Deed of Sale instead of annulling or rescinding it. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the partition of the property when a separate action for partition was already pending.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED, and the decision dated July 14, 1970, of the then CFI of Cagayan, Br. II, is REVERSED. Costs against private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of legal redemption and Erlinda Vallangca's status: The Supreme Court held that Erlinda Vallangca is considered a "third person" or "stranger" within the contemplation of Article 1620 of the Civil Code. The Court clarified that the term "third person" or "stranger" in Article 1620 refers to all persons who are not heirs in succession, and by heirs are meant only those who are called by will or law to succeed and who actually succeed. Erlinda Vallangca, being related by affinity to the deceased Basilia Garcia through her marriage to heir Concepcion Villanueva, does not inherit or succeed in her own right. She is not an heir of Basilia Garcia nor included in the "family relations" as envisioned in Article 217 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the co-owners (petitioners) should be allowed to exercise their right to redeem the property sold to her, as denying this right would defeat the purpose of minimizing co-ownership and contravene public policy. The Court reiterated that a co-owner, before partition, has the right to sell his undivided interest but not a divided part with defined boundaries, which was what occurred in this case. On the reformation of the Deed of Sale: While the Court acknowledged that a co-owner has the right to sell his undivided interest, the sale of a specific portion with defined boundaries before partition is problematic. The Court's reversal of the decision implies that the reformation was not the appropriate remedy, as the core issue was the right of redemption against a party deemed a stranger, and the nature of the sale itself. The reversal of the entire decision suggests that the reformation order was part of an erroneous judgment. On the order of partition: The Supreme Court found the trial court's order for partition to be uncalled for. This was based on the fact that a separate action for the partition of the same subject lot was already pending before the same court. Proceeding with another order for partition in the rescission and redemption case would be redundant and contrary to orderly judicial procedure.
Main Doctrine
A vendee who is related by affinity to the deceased co-owner, by reason of her marriage to one of the heirs, is considered a "third person" or "stranger" within the meaning of Article 1620 of the Civil Code, and thus, the right of legal redemption may be exercised by the other co-owners against her. The seller, as a co-owner, can only sell his undivided interest or ideal share, not a divided part with defined boundaries, before partition.