Almendrala v. Ngo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Spouses Almendrala (Almendrala spouses) filed a complaint for legal redemption and damages against respondents Spouses Ngo (Ngo spouses). The Almendrala spouses alleged they are owners of Lot 5-B, adjoining Lot 5-D, which was sold by the Manalo spouses (Ricardo Almendrala's sister and brother-in-law) to the Ngo spouses for ₱44,000.00. They claimed the sale was registered without the requisite vendor's affidavit, the lot was needed for frontage and occupied by their house, and they were ready to exercise their right of legal redemption. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially denied the Ngo spouses' motion to declare them in default, admitting their answer. However, the RTC later declared the Ngo spouses in default for failing to attend the pre-trial conference. Despite subsequent motions for reconsideration and to amend their answer, and a third-party complaint against the Manalo spouses, the RTC eventually allowed these, and the Manalo spouses filed an amended answer claiming the sale was a mortgage and the land was offered to the Almendrala spouses at ₱12,000.00 per square meter. A compromise agreement was reached between the Ngo spouses and Manalo spouses. The RTC rendered a decision upholding the Almendrala spouses' right of legal redemption, finding the lot too small for practical use and bought for speculation. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this, dismissing the complaint, holding that the Almendrala spouses failed to allege and prove that the lot could not be used for any practical purpose or was bought for speculation. The Petition: The Almendrala spouses filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the CA committed grave error and abuse of discretion in replacing the RTC's factual findings and favoring allegedly false testimonies. They contended that they offered evidence proving speculation, despite not alleging it in the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error and abuse of discretion in re-examining the factual findings of the trial court. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in favoring the testimonies of the respondent and his witness. Whether the Almendrala spouses are entitled to the right of legal redemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave error and abuse of discretion in re-examining factual findings: The Supreme Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and the CA's findings are generally conclusive. While exceptions exist, none were found applicable in this case. The Court found that the CA did not err in its appreciation of the facts, particularly concerning the elements required for legal redemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code. The Almendrala spouses' claim that the CA substituted its own findings for those of the RTC was deemed unfounded as the CA correctly applied the law to the established facts. On the alleged error in favoring respondent's testimonies: The Court held that it is within the CA's discretion to accept or reject portions of testimony. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a strict rule of law and can be applied selectively. The Almendrala spouses failed to present concrete evidence that the Ngo spouses or their witness intended to pervert the truth. The CA's assessment of the credibility of witnesses was found to be within its prerogative and not tainted with reversible error. On the entitlement to legal redemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code: The Court found that the Almendrala spouses failed to prove all the necessary elements for legal redemption under Article 1622. While the land was urban and small (22 square meters), they failed to convincingly show that a major portion could not be used for any practical purpose or that it was bought merely for speculation. The testimonies regarding the intention to resell were found unconvincing, and the alleged inability to use the land due to building code requirements was deemed a solvable issue, not proof of impracticality. The Ngo spouses, conversely, presented evidence of their intention to use the lot for business and explained the delay in building plan approval due to the pending litigation. The burden of proof rested on the Almendrala spouses, who failed to discharge it by a preponderance of evidence.
Main Doctrine
The right of pre-emption or redemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code requires the allegation and proof of all its elements: that the land is urban, so small that a major portion cannot be used for any practical purpose within a reasonable time, bought merely for speculation, and about to be resold or its resale perfected. Failure to prove any of these elements, particularly the purpose of speculation and the inability to use the land practically, bars the claim.