CAPÍTULO II. PLAN DE INVESTIGACIÓN
2.1. Realidad Problemática
NATURE
Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA which reversed the decision of CFI of Iloilo, that had in turn dismissed herein private respondent Filomena Javellana's action for redemption of a certain property sold by her co-owners to the Doromals for having been made out of time.
FACTS
- Lot 3504 of the cadastral survey of Iloilo, situated in the poblacion of La Paz (2.5 ha.), was originally decreed in the name of the late Justice Antonio Horilleno.
- Before Antonio died, he executed a last will and testament attesting to the fact that it was a co-ownership between himself and his brothers and sisters, so that the co- owners were (besides Justice Horilleno): Luis, Soledad, Fe, Rosita, Carlos and Esperanza.
- Since Esperanza had already died, she was succeeded by her only daughter and heir herein plaintiff, Filomena Javellana, in the proportion of 1/7 undivided ownership each. - Even though their right had not yet been annotated in the title, the co-owners (led by Carlos and as to the deceased Antonio, his daughter Mary) sometime in 1967, had wanted to sell their shares, or if Filomena were agreeable, to sell the entire
property.
- The Doromals (Ramon Sr. and Jr.) were interested in the property. In preparation for the execution of the sale, since the siblings were scattered in various parts of the country, they all executed various powers of attorney in favor of their niece, Mary H. Jimenez. They also caused preparation of a power of attorney of identical tenor for signature by Filomena Javellana.
- Through a letter Carlos informed Filomena that the price was P4.00 a square meter, although as early as October 22, 1967, Carlos had received in check as earnest money from defendant Ramon Doromal, Jr., the sum of P5,000.00 and the price therein agreed upon was five (P5.00) pesos a square meter (In November 1967 Carlos told Filomena that P5,000 in earnest money was paid for P6.00 a sq.m).
- Filomena did not agree to the sale, and did not sign the power of attorney. The rest of the co-owners went ahead with their sale of their 6/7. Carlos saw to it first that the deed of sale (by their common attorney in fact, Mary H. Jimenez) be signed and ratified in Candon, Ilocos Sur, on January 15, 1968.
- Carlos in the same month tried to register the sale, but because the Register of Deeds of Iloilo refused to register right away (since the original registered owner, Justice Antonio Horilleno was already dead) he hired Atty. Arandela to file a petition within the cadastral case, on February 26, 1968, for that purpose. Carlos returned to Luzon, and after compliance with the requisites of publication, hearing and notice, the petition was approved.
- April 29, 1968: Carlos, back in Iloilo, went to the Register of Deeds and caused the registration of the order of the cadastral court approving the issuance of a new
title in the name of the co-owners, as well as of the deed of sale to the Doromals, as a result of which on that same date, a new title was issued in the name of the Horillenos to 6/7 and plaintiff Filomena Javellana to 1/7.
- The next day the Doromals paid Carlos by check, the sum of P97,000.00. Besides this amount paid in check, the Doromals (as evidenced) still paid an additional amount in cash of P18,250.00 since the agreed price was P5.00 a square meter, thus consummating the transaction.
- June 10, 1968: Filomena’s lawyer, Atty. Villanueva, went to the Doromals’ residence and presented a letter by Filomena. In it Filomena offered to redeem the 6/7 of the property for the sum of P30,000.00. The Doromals refused.
Petitioner’s Claim
- As a co-owner she had the right to redeem at the price indicated in the sale.
Respondent’s Comments
- Filomena had no more right to redeem, and that if ever she should have, that it should be at the true and real price by them paid, namely, the total sum of P115,250.00.
ISSUE(S)
1. WON Filomena was still entitled to redeem the property. (YES) 2. The correct amount of redemption. (P30,000)
HELD
1. YES
Ratio The notice in writing to be made to other co-owners required by
Article 1623 is not only of a perfected sale but of the actual execution and delivery of the deed of sale. It is from that which the 30-day period to redeem
should be counted.
Reasoning
ART. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised
except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners.
- The Doromals do not question Filomena’s right to redeem. They contend however that the redemption period has prescribed already. They say that the letters sent by Carlos to Filomena (dated Oct. 22 and Nov. 5, 1967) constituted the notice required by the provision.
- However, there is no showing that said letters were in fact received by respondent and when they were actually received. Besides, petitioners do not pinpoint which of these two letters, their dates being more than two months apart, is the required notice. In any event, as found by the CA, neither of said letters referred to a consummated sale.
- While the letters relied upon by the Doromals could convey the idea that more or less some kind of consensus had been arrived at among the other Homeowners to sell the property in dispute, it cannot be said definitely that such a sale had even been actually perfected. The fact alone that in the later letter of January 18, 1968 the price indicated was P4.00 per square meter while in that of November 5, 1967, what was stated was P5.00 per square meter negatives the possibility that a "price definite" had already been agreed upon.
- Earnest money in this case must be construed in light of the definition under the Old Civil Code—a guarantee that the buyer would not back out—considering that it is not clear that there was already a definite agreement as to the price then and that petitioners were decided to buy 6/7 only of the property should respondent Javellana refuse to agree to part with her 1/7 share.
2. P30,000.00, as indicated in the sale.
Ratio The redemption in controversy should be only for the price stipulated in the
deed, regardless of what might have been actually paid by petitioners.
Reasoning
- The trial court found that "the consideration of P30,000 only was placed in the deed of sale to minimize the payment of the registration fees, stamps and sales tax." - With this undisputed fact in mind, it is impossible for the Supreme Court to sanction petitioners' pragmatic but immoral posture. Being patently violative of public policy and injurious to public interest, the seemingly wide practice of understating considerations of transactions for the purpose of evading taxes and fees due to the government must be condemned and all parties guilty thereof must be made to suffer the consequences of their ill-advised agreement to defraud the state.
- If it be argued that foregoing solution would mean unjust enrichment for plaintiff, it need only be remembered that plaintiffs right is not contractual, but a mere legal one, the exercise of a right granted by the law, and the law is definite that she can subrogate herself in place of the buyer.
- this solution is not unjust because it only binds the parties to make good their solemn representation to possible redemptioners on the price of the sale, to what they
had solemnly averred in a public document required by the law to be the only basis for that exercise of redemption.