Escabarte v. Heirs of Isaw
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Ipo Bawing and Tanod Subano owned a 16.2962-hectare property. Upon their deaths, the property passed to their eight children. Over time, several of these children, or their heirs, sold their respective shares. Initially, shares of Octoc, Igbay, and Martina were sold to spouses David and Luz Barrios in 1960 and 1962. Subsequently, in 1976, spouses Barrios reconveyed these shares to Fausto and Benigno Isaw, sons of Garay. Fausto then sold his interest to Benigno. In 1980, the property was subdivided, and Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were issued. TCT Nos. T-34992 and T-34994 were issued in Benigno Isaw's name for Lots 1 and 3, while TCT Nos. T-34993, T-34995, and T-34996 were issued in the name of Ipo Bawing for Lots 2, 4, and 5. Procedural History: In 2003, twenty-three years after the TCTs were issued, petitioners, who are heirs of the original owners, filed a complaint seeking the annulment of TCT Nos. T-34992 and T-34994 and the partition of the entire property. They argued that the conveyance to Fausto and Benigno was conditional, intended for reimbursement, after which the property should have been partitioned. The respondents, heirs of Benigno Isaw, countered that an oral partition had occurred and that Benigno's registration of the lots in his name constituted a repudiation of co-ownership, making the action for partition time-barred. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the TCTs in Benigno's name null and void and ordering the partition of the property. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, upholding the validity of Benigno's titles and ordering the partition of the remaining lots among the other heirs. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. They contend that the CA erred in upholding the validity of TCT Nos. T-34992 and T-34994, registered in Benigno's name, and argue that these lots should be considered part of the estate of spouses Bawing subject to partition. The core of their argument revolves around the nature of the transaction between spouses Barrios and Fausto and Benigno Isaw, asserting it was a redemption for the benefit of all heirs, not an outright sale. They also question the application of prescription, particularly concerning the lack of proper written notice for legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Resale in favor of Fausto and Benigno Isaw constituted a redemption for the benefit of all heirs or an ordinary sale, and whether the co-heirs exercised their right of legal redemption within the prescribed period. Whether the action for partition of Lots 1 and 3 had prescribed, and whether certain heirs should be excluded from the partition of the remaining portions of the property.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The validity of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-34992 and T-34994 in the name of the late Benigno Isaw is upheld. Consequently, Lots 1 and 3 are not part of the estate to be partitioned among all the heirs of spouses Bawing.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the Deed of Resale, prescription, and right of legal redemption: The Court held that the Deed of Resale executed in favor of Fausto and Benigno Isaw, covering the aliquot shares of Octoc, Igbay, and Martina, was an ordinary sale and not a redemption for the benefit of all heirs because the co-heirs failed to exercise their right of legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code within the prescribed period. The Court reiterated that for legal redemption to apply, several requisites must concur, including the exercise of the right within one month from written notice by the vendor. Although the general rule requires written notice, the Court, citing Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, recognized an exception where actual notice to co-heirs satisfied the requirement, especially when the delay in invoking the right spans years. In this case, the co-heirs could not feign ignorance of the sales made in 1960 and 1962, and their 30-day period to redeem had lapsed long before the resale in 1976. On the exclusion of certain heirs from partition and prescription: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the heirs of Martina, Igbay, and the legitimate sole heir of Octoc should be excluded from the partition of the remaining portions of the property because they had already validly disposed of their interests. Furthermore, the issuance of TCT Nos. T-34992 and T-34994 in Benigno's name in 1980, followed by his open and continuous possession of Lots 1 and 3 since then, which was never denied by the petitioners, established his exclusive ownership over these portions. The action for partition concerning these lots, filed 23 years after the titles were issued, had clearly prescribed. This aligns with the principle that a party who has divested themselves of their share in a co-owned property is no longer entitled to participate in its partition. The Court's affirmation of the CA's decision means that Lots 1 and 3, registered under Benigno's name, are considered his exclusive property and not part of the estate of spouses Bawing to be divided among all original heirs. The remaining lots (Lots 2, 4, and 5) are to be partitioned among the five children of spouses Bawing or their respective heirs by representation, excluding those who had already sold their shares.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that the transaction covered by the Deed of Resale was an ordinary sale, not a redemption inuring to the benefit of all heirs, because the co-heirs failed to exercise their right of redemption within the prescribed period, and the registration of the property in Benigno's name, coupled with open and continuous possession for 23 years, barred the action for partition.