Badillo v. Ferrer
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Macario Badillo died intestate, survived by his widow, Clarita Ferrer, and five minor children. He left a parcel of land with a house, valued at P7,500.00. Each minor child inherited a 1/12 share, valued at P625.00, which is less than P2,000.00 as per Article 320 of the Civil Code. On January 18, 1967, Clarita Ferrer, in her behalf and as natural guardian of the minors, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale, selling the property to defendants-appellants, spouses Gregorio Soromero and Eleuteria Rana. The sale was registered, and a new title was issued to the appellants. On November 11, 1968, Modesta Badillo, sister of the deceased, was appointed guardian over the persons and properties of the minor plaintiffs without personal notice to their mother. On July 23, 1970, the guardian filed a complaint for annulment of the sale of the minors' participation and to exercise the right of legal redemption over the widow's share. Procedural History: The lower court, invoking Nario vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Co., annulled the sale of the minors' participation and allowed them to redeem their mother's share. The Petition: Defendants-appellants appealed, assigning errors concerning the period of redemption, the validity of the sale of the minors' shares, and the order to re-sell a portion of the property.
Issue(s)
Whether the sale of the plaintiffs' shares in the property made by their mother, Clarita Ferrer Badillo, in favor of the defendant spouses is valid and binding upon the plaintiffs, considering the plaintiffs' minority and the lack of court authorization for the sale. Whether the plaintiffs, as co-owners, may still exercise their right of legal redemption under Article 1620 and pursuant to Article 1623 of the Civil Code, and if the notice requirement under Article 1623 was properly complied with. Whether the period of thirty (30) days provided by Article 1623 of the Civil Code for redemption has elapsed, considering the plaintiffs' minority and the actions of their natural and judicial guardians.
Ruling
The decision of the lower court is modified. The sale of the minors' 5/12 share is annulled, and the appellants are ordered to reconvey the same to the appellees. However, the appellants' ownership over the remaining 7/12 share is confirmed, as the period for legal redemption had already lapsed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the sale of the minors' shares: The Court held that the sale of the minors' 5/12 share, while unauthorized by court, could not be annulled on the ground of minority if the redemption period had already lapsed. The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale was an unenforceable or unauthorized contract under Articles 1403(1) and 1317 of the Civil Code, as Clarita Ferrer Badillo acted beyond her powers as natural guardian by alienating the property without court authorization. However, the lapse of the redemption period rendered the sale of the minors' share valid from the perspective of legal redemption, but the unauthorized alienation itself meant the minors could seek annulment of the sale of their shares, provided they acted within the prescriptive period for such actions, which they did through their guardian. On the right of legal redemption and notice: The Court found that the period for legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code runs against a minor co-owner whose property value does not exceed P2,000.00, provided the parent acting as legal guardian is served with written notice. In this case, the minors' inherited shares were valued at P625.00 each, and their mother, Clarita Ferrer Badillo, was their natural guardian under Article 320 of the Civil Code and Rule 93, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court. When Clarita Ferrer Badillo signed and received her copy of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale on January 18, 1967, she effectively received the written notice required by Article 1623 on behalf of her minor children. This manner of receiving notice is sanctioned by jurisprudence. On the lapse of the redemption period: The Court found that the period for legal redemption had already expired. The written notice required by Article 1623 was served on January 18, 1967, when the mother, as natural guardian, received her copy of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale. The offer to redeem was made only after November 11, 1968, when the judicial guardian was appointed. Thus, the thirty-day period for redemption had elapsed, precluding the exercise of the right of legal redemption by the minors. The Court distinguished this from the annulment of the sale of the minors' shares, which was based on the unauthorized act of alienation by the mother, not on the failure to redeem within the statutory period. The ruling in Villasor vs. Medel was applied, emphasizing that the law is precise regarding the starting point of the redemption period and does not contemplate extensions due to minority unless expressly stated, especially when a guardian is duly notified.
Main Doctrine
The period for legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code runs against a minor co-owner whose property does not exceed P2,000.00, provided that the parent acting as legal guardian is served with the written notice of sale. The mother, as natural guardian, is deemed to have received such notice when she signed and received her copy of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Sale.