Cabales v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rufino Cabales died intestate, leaving a 5,714-square meter land to his wife Saturnina and six children, including Alberto and petitioner Rito. Bonifacio, Albino, and Alberto sold their shares to Dr. Cayetano Corrompido with right to repurchase within eight years. Alberto died, leaving his wife and son, petitioner Nelson. Saturnina, Bonifacio, and Albino repurchased Alberto's share from Dr. Corrompido, including Alberto's "vale" (note). Subsequently, Saturnina and four children sold the land to respondents-spouses Jesus and Anunciacion Feliano. The deed of sale stated that the shares of minors Alberto's heirs and Rito would be held in trust by the vendees until they reached 21. Saturnina and the other children executed an affidavit regarding Nelson's share, considering Saturnina's payment for Alberto's obligations. Rito, then 24, acknowledged receipt of his share. Nelson, residing in Manila, learned of the sale in 1988 and initiated barangay conciliation in 1993 to redeem the land. Procedural History: Petitioners Nelson and Rito filed a complaint for redemption and damages, contending they could not have sold their shares as minors. Respondents-spouses argued estoppel, Rito's receipt of proceeds, and Nelson's failure to consign redemption price. The RTC ruled against petitioners, holding that Alberto's heirs lost their right to the land, Saturnina was subrogated, and Rito had no right to redeem as the sale by Saturnina (his legal guardian) was valid and he received his share. The Court of Appeals modified the RTC decision, holding the sale of Rito's share unenforceable but ratified by his receipt of proceeds. It ruled Nelson was a co-owner but denied his redemption claim for failure to tender redemption money. It directed Nelson to pay Saturnina's estate for his father's obligations. The Petition: Petitioners contend the CA erred in recognizing Nelson as a co-owner but denying his redemption right, and in not recognizing Rito as a co-owner with redemption rights.
Issue(s)
Whether the sale of the pro indiviso share of petitioner Rito Cabales, a minor at the time, was valid and binding; and whether Rito Cabales is entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption over the subject property. Whether the sale of the pro indiviso share of petitioner Nelson Cabales, a minor at the time, was valid and binding; and whether Nelson Cabales is entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption over the subject property. Whether the period for legal redemption had already expired for Rito Cabales. Whether the period for legal redemption had already expired for Nelson Cabales.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The Register of Deeds of Southern Leyte is ORDERED to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 17035 and to issue in lieu thereof a new certificate of title in the name of respondents-spouses Jesus and Anunciacion Feliano for the 6/7 portion, and petitioner Nelson Cabales and his mother for the remaining 1/7 portion, pro indiviso.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity and binding effect of the sale of petitioner Rito Cabales' share and his right to legal redemption: The Court held that the sale of Rito's pro indiviso share was unenforceable because Saturnina, his mother and legal guardian, lacked the judicial authority to alienate his property. However, Rito's subsequent acknowledgment of receipt of the proceeds of the sale on July 24, 1986, constituted ratification, rendering the contract valid and binding as to him. Therefore, Rito lost his right to redeem his share. On the validity and binding effect of the sale of petitioner Nelson Cabales' share and his right to legal redemption: The Court ruled that the sale of Nelson's pro indiviso share was void. Saturnina was not Nelson's legal guardian with judicial authority to alienate his property. Consequently, Saturnina and the other co-owners could only sell their respective pro indiviso shares, and Nelson and his mother retained ownership over their undivided share. Nelson and his mother, not having been divested of their ownership due to the void sale of their share, retained the right to redeem the subject property from the respondents-spouses. On the expiration of the period for legal redemption for Rito Cabales: Rito, having ratified the sale of his share, lost his right to redeem. On the expiration of the period for legal redemption for Nelson Cabales: The Court found that while Nelson and his mother retained ownership, their right to redeem was subject to the 30-day period from written notice. Despite Nelson being a minor at the time of the sale, he was informed of the sale in 1988 and again in 1993, when he initiated barangay conciliation. The Court considered the 1993 barangay conciliation as sufficient notice, commencing the 30-day redemption period. Since Nelson filed his complaint for redemption on January 12, 1995, the redemption period had long expired. Thus, Nelson could no longer redeem the property, although he and his mother remained co-owners.
Main Doctrine
A sale of a minor co-owner's pro indiviso share in a property, executed by a legal guardian without judicial authority, is unenforceable unless ratified. Ratification occurs through the minor's receipt of the proceeds of the sale upon reaching majority age. However, the right of legal redemption by a co-owner who did not part with his share is subject to a 30-day period from written notice of the sale, which period may commence from actual knowledge of the sale if strict written notice is not feasible and would lead to injustice.