Hermoso v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the legal redemption of undivided shares in a parcel of land located in Meycauayan, Bulacan. The property was originally owned by Agrifina Francia and devolved to her three children: Isidro, Consolacion, and Emilio. Consolacion later acquired Isidro's share, resulting in Consolacion owning two-thirds (2/3) and the Heirs of Emilio owning one-third (1/3). Emilio Hermoso died leaving his wife, Clarita P. Hermoso (now Carin), and four children: Rogelio, Victoria, Agustinito, and Danilo. Agustinito and Danilo Hermoso, two of Emilio's sons, sold their respective shares in the undivided property to spouses Ceferino C. Palaganas and Azucena R. Palaganas, and Dr. Amanda C. Palaganas (collectively, the Palaganases). Clarita P. Hermoso and Victoria P. Hermoso (petitioners) sought to exercise their right of legal redemption over these sold shares. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners, Clarita P. Hermoso and Victoria P. Hermoso, filed a complaint for legal redemption before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan on October 8, 1984. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the Palaganases to allow redemption upon payment of P401,500.00 and to surrender possession of the property. The Palaganases appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC's decision, dismissing the petitioners' complaint and ordering the third-party defendants (Hermoso brothers) to pay the Palaganases attorney's fees. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. This petition for review seeks to set aside the CA's decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Clarita P. Hermoso and Victoria P. Hermoso, filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's decision. Specifically, they contend that the respondent court erred in holding that the property was partitioned, that the co-ownership had been terminated, and that their right of redemption had already prescribed. They assert that an agreement executed by the heirs of Emilio Hermoso was merely a scheme for future partition and not a definitive partition, especially since the majority co-owner, Consolacion Hermoso, was not a party to it. Furthermore, they argue that the period for legal redemption had not yet commenced because the vendors (Agustinito and Danilo Hermoso) failed to provide the required written notice of the sale to the co-heirs, and the petitioners actively pursued their right upon learning of the sale.
Issue(s)
Whether the property in dispute was still under co-ownership or had been partitioned. Whether the petitioners could still exercise their right of legal redemption.
Ruling
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinstating the Regional Trial Court's ruling. It held that the property remained under co-ownership and that the petitioners' right of legal redemption had not prescribed due to the lack of proper written notice and the deliberate concealment of the sale by the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of co-ownership and partition: The Court found that the 'Agreement' dated May 29, 1974, executed by the heirs of Emilio Hermoso, was merely a scheme for future partition and not a definitive partition itself. This was because Consolacion Hermoso, who owned two-thirds (2/3) of the property, was not a party to the agreement. The Court emphasized that for a partition to be binding and terminate co-ownership, all co-owners must participate. The existence of a 'stonewall' mentioned in the agreement was not sufficient to establish a partition, as it merely indicated a desired arrangement for future division. Furthermore, subsequent documents, including the Deed of Absolute Sale executed in 1980 and a certification from 1979, explicitly referred to the sale of 'undivided shares,' indicating that the parties themselves recognized the continued existence of co-ownership. The Court also noted that the registered title (OCT No. 0-1054 (M)) still reflected co-ownership between Consolacion Hermoso-Cruz and the Heirs of Emilio Hermoso, further supporting the conclusion that no partition had been legally effected. On the issue of the timeliness of exercising the right of legal redemption: The Court ruled that the period for exercising the right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code had not commenced. This was primarily due to the lack of a written notice of the sale to the redemptioners, as required by law. The Court found that the Hermoso brothers, the vendors, deliberately concealed the sale from their mother, Clarita, and sister, Victoria. Even the vendees, the Palaganases, were aware of the petitioners' strong opposition to the alienation of the property, as evidenced by the aborted sale in 1979. The deliberate concealment and lack of written notice meant that the petitioners could not have known with certainty the circumstances of the sale, its terms, and its validity. The Court stressed that the period of redemption is a condition precedent and does not begin to run without the requisite written notice. The petitioners' prompt action upon discovering the sale and their subsequent offer to redeem, even if made after some time, were deemed timely because the legal period had not yet commenced. The Court also highlighted that the purpose of the law on legal redemption is to reduce the number of participants in co-ownership, and interpretations should favor the redemptioner to achieve this end.
Main Doctrine
The period for exercising the right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code does not commence without a written notice of the sale to the redemptioner. The absence of such notice, coupled with the deliberate concealment of the sale by the vendors and vendees, tolls the running of the redemption period, making the redemption timely when exercised promptly upon discovery.