Salatandol v. Retes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs and the late Eufemia Omole were co-owners of one-third (1/3) share each of Lot No. 513. Eufemia Omole sold her share to defendant Catalina Retes for P1,000.00 via a Deed of Sale dated January 17, 1965. The plaintiffs were neither notified by Eufemia Omole nor by Catalina Retes about the sale. On January 18, 1965, the Register of Deeds sent a letter to plaintiff Flavia Salatandol informing her of the document presented for registration. Plaintiffs, on January 30, 1965, informed Catalina Retes of their desire to repurchase the share. Failing to get a favorable action, plaintiffs deposited P1,000.00 with the Clerk of Court on February 5, 1965, and the Clerk of Court notified Catalina Retes on February 13, 1965. On February 16, 1965, plaintiffs filed an action for legal pre-emption. While the case was pending, Catalina Retes resold the share to Eufemia Omole on February 22, 1965, and Eufemia Omole subsequently donated the same share to Catalina Retes on March 11, 1965. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental allowed the plaintiffs to exercise the right of legal pre-emption, ordered the defendant to accept the pre-emption price and execute a deed of conveyance, and awarded attorney's fees and costs. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court, posing the issue of whether the right of legal pre-emption accrued in favor of the appellees given the lack of notice from the vendor.
Issue(s)
Whether the notice from the Register of Deeds to a co-owner is equivalent to the written notice required from the vendor under Article 1623 of the Civil Code for the exercise of the right of legal pre-emption. Whether the right of legal pre-emption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code can still be exercised when there has been an actual partition of the property among co-owners.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the lower court, dismissing the complaint. The Court held that the right of legal pre-emption had not yet accrued in favor of the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of notice for legal pre-emption: The Court reiterated the ruling in Butte vs. Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc., emphasizing that Article 1623 of the Civil Code clearly and expressly prescribes that the thirty-day period for legal pre-emption or redemption is to be counted from the written notice given by the vendor. The Court explained that the legislature deliberately selected this particular method of giving notice, making it exclusive. The notice must come from the seller because the seller is in the best position to know the co-owners who must be notified, and such notice removes doubts as to the sale's perfection and validity. A notice from the buyer or the Register of Deeds does not satisfy this requirement. In this case, the plaintiffs were not furnished any written notice of sale by Eufemia Omole, the vendor, thus their right to exercise legal pre-emption had not yet accrued. On the issue of partition and co-ownership: Even assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that the notice from the Register of Deeds was sufficient, the Court found that co-ownership, in its real sense, no longer existed. This was deduced from the trial court's order restraining parties from harvesting nuts on the disputed share, indicating an actual partition and identification of respective shares. Article 484 of the Civil Code defines co-ownership as existing when the ownership of an undivided thing belongs to different persons, meaning a co-owner cannot point to a specific portion as their own. When portions have been identified and localized, co-ownership ceases, and consequently, the right of redemption or pre-emption under Article 1620 can no longer be invoked over the portion pertaining to a former co-owner, as established in Umengan vs. Butucan.
Main Doctrine
The thirty-day period for exercising the right of legal pre-emption or redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code is counted from the written notice given by the vendor, not by the vendee or the Register of Deeds. Furthermore, the right of legal pre-emption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code can no longer be invoked if there has been an actual partition of the property, even if it was previously held under a certificate of title for an undivided share.