Jesus v. Manglapus
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs Paciencia, Felina, Elena, and Maria de Jesus are heirs of the late Gavino de Jesus, along with Sixto de Jesus and their mother, Natalia Alfonga. In the testate estate of Gavino de Jesus, Sixto de Jesus and Natalia Alfonga sold their rights, interests, and participation in the estate, specifically two parcels of land covered by O.C.T. Nos. 1292 and 1344, to the defendant Justina S. Vda. de Manglapus for P106,997.87 in Japanese War Notes. The plaintiffs learned of this sale on September 4, 1945, and demanded subrogation to the rights purchased by the defendant, which was refused. Procedural History: The plaintiffs filed an amended and supplemental complaint seeking to repurchase the two parcels of land by virtue of their right of legal redemption under Article 1067 of the Civil Code. The defendant refused to resell the properties for less than P90,000 Philippine currency. The Court of First Instance of Batangas dismissed the action, finding that the amended and supplemental complaint did not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, particularly because the sale occurred after the project of partition was approved by the court. The Petition: The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal order, arguing that the sale of their co-heirs' shares, even if after the project of partition was submitted but not yet approved, still constituted a sale of hereditary rights subject to legal redemption under Article 1067 of the Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the sale of hereditary rights by co-heirs to a stranger before the approval of the project of partition is subject to the right of legal redemption under Article 1067 of the Civil Code. Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the action for failure to state a cause of action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, dismissing the action. The Court held that Article 1067 of the Civil Code, which grants the right of legal redemption to co-heirs, applies only to the sale of hereditary rights to an undivided estate before partition. Once the property has been partitioned and specific parcels are allotted to individual heirs, the conveyance of these segregated parcels in severalty is no longer considered a sale of hereditary rights subject to redemption under the said article.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of legal redemption under Article 1067 of the Civil Code: The Court reiterated the principle that Article 1067 of the Civil Code is applicable only to the sale of hereditary rights by an heir to a stranger before the partition of the estate. The purpose of this article is to prevent the intrusion of strangers into a family's joint ownership of an undivided estate. In this case, the sale of the two parcels of land, covered by O.C.T. Nos. 1292 and 1344, occurred after these parcels had been segregated and allotted to Sixto de Jesus and Natalia Alfonga as their shares in the testate estate of Gavino de Jesus, even if the project of partition was still pending court approval at the time of the absolute sale. The Court emphasized that a conveyance by a tenant in common of property marked out by metes and bounds in a partition operates as a conveyance of an estate in severalty, not an estate in common. Therefore, the subject matter of the sale were specific parcels of land, not merely rights and interests in an undivided estate, rendering Article 1067 inapplicable. On the issue of whether the lower court erred in dismissing the action for failure to state a cause of action: The Court found that the lower court correctly dismissed the action. The allegations in the amended and supplemental complaint, when viewed in light of the established facts, did not establish a cause of action for legal redemption under Article 1067. The crucial fact was that the sale involved specific parcels of land already segregated as shares in the partition, not an undivided hereditary right. The Court also addressed the confusion regarding whether the transaction was an absolute sale or a promise to sell, and whether it occurred before or after the partition's approval, stating that these distinctions were immaterial because, in any event, the sale did not involve an undivided hereditary share, which is the prerequisite for the application of Article 1067. The Court also found no merit in the technical objections regarding the motion to dismiss and the defendants' reply, as the grounds for dismissal were sufficiently clear and the defense of failure to state a cause of action can be raised at any stage.
Main Doctrine
The right of legal redemption under Article 1067 of the Civil Code applies only to the sale of hereditary rights to an undivided estate before partition. Conveyance of property owned and possessed in severalty after partition does not fall within the purview of this article.