Heirs of Bajenting v. Bañez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Venancio Bajenting applied for and was issued a free patent over a parcel of land. After his death, his heirs executed an Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed of Absolute Sale, adjudicating the property among themselves and selling portions to respondents Romeo F. Bañez and spouses Jonathan and Sonia Luz Alfafara. The deed was not notarized, and the sale was not approved by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. The heirs attempted to repurchase the property under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, but the respondents refused. Procedural History: The Heirs filed a complaint for Quieting of Title, Repurchase of Property, Recovery of Title plus Damages. The trial court ruled in favor of the Heirs, ordering the respondents to vacate the property and deliver the title, and releasing the deposited repurchase money to the respondents. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the Heirs were seeking to repurchase the property for profit and not for preservation. The Petition: The Heirs filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the CA erred in disregarding the RTC's findings, applying the Santana case, and not resolving the issue of the unpaid balance of the purchase price. They also contended that the testimonies of witnesses Reyes and Oyco were hearsay and inadmissible due to the death of Margarita Reusora.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners substantially complied with the rule on verification and certification against forum shopping. Whether the petitioners are entitled to repurchase the property from the respondents. Whether the petitioners are obliged to execute a notarized deed of absolute sale over the property.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with modification, ordering the petitioners to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the respondents upon payment of the balance of the purchase price, without prejudice to any action the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources may take.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of verification and certification against forum shopping: The Court ruled that while only one petitioner signed the verification and certification, it constituted substantial compliance. The petitioners, as heirs, shared a common interest and defense, and petitioner Venencio Bajenting was authorized to act on their behalf. On the issue of entitlement to repurchase the property: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the petitioners were not entitled to repurchase the property. The Court found that the petitioners' intention was to resell the property for a substantial profit, which contravenes the purpose of Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, designed to preserve the family home. The testimonies of Reyes and Oyco, despite the death of Margarita Reusora, were deemed admissible and credible, showing the profit motive. The Court also noted the petitioners' willingness to settle for a large sum and to have the property sold to a third party. On the issue of executing a notarized deed of absolute sale: The Court agreed with the respondents that the petitioners are obliged to execute a notarized deed of absolute sale upon payment of the remaining balance of the purchase price. The Court stated that a contract of sale is consensual, and upon perfection, parties may demand performance. The balance was due on December 31, 1993.
Main Doctrine
The right to repurchase under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 is intended to preserve the family home and is not meant to be used for speculation or to amass profit. If the repurchase is found to be for speculative purposes, it should not be allowed.