Caro vs. CA (1982) Short Summary: Property Summary: Property was co-owned by 3 brothers, one of which predeceased the others. His estate was administered by the surviving wife and his father. One of the co-owners sold his 1/3 undivided portion to a RP. Although the other co-owners did not want to redeem the property, the widow of the deceased co-owner (who was also 1 of the administrators of his estate) wanted to exercise such right. Court held that an administrator cannot exercise the right of legal redemption. Facts: -Sorsogon property (2 parcels of land) co-owned by:
Alfredo Benito
Mario Benito (+)
Benjamin Benito -Mario died. Surviving wife Basilia Lahorra and father Saturnino Benito appointed as joint administrators of Mario's estate -Benjamin sold through DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE of 1/3 undivided portion to LUZ CARO, for P10k. Registered sale. -Subdivision title issued title issued to Luz Caro, with consent of Alfredo and Saturnino (as administrator) - both executed affidavits claimant/creditor? ) in the SPECPRO that she bought 1/3 of the property co- owned. -almost 6 years after, Caro filed a pleading (not sure - as claimant/creditor? Only then did Basilia found out about it. -Basilia offered to redeem the said share but was ignored -Basilia then intervened in case of Rosa Amador vda De Benito vs. Luz Caro for annulment of sale and mortgage and cancellation of the annotation of the sale and mortgage involving same parcels of land - PRINCIPAL CASE dismissed for failure to prosecute and to pay docket fees -Basilia then filed this independent case for legal redemption: no notice of the sale as required under A1620 and 1623 of NCC (no notice to her as administrator of the estate of a co-owner) >La Luz presented secondary evidence of service of written notice to possible redemptioners (written notice sent to Alfredo and Saturnino - the best evidence - cannot be presented because they were already dead when the complaint for legal redemption brought):
Affidavit of Benjamin Benito, ante lite motam, attesting to the fact that the possible redemptioners were formally notified in writing of his intention to sell his undivided share
Deposition of Saturnino's widow (bale mother in law ni Basilia): testified that she received and gave Saturnino the written notice of intended
sale and Saturnino expressed disinterest in buyingproperty >>Complaint >>Complaint for legal redemption DISMISSED a. Administratrix of co-owner does not have the power to exercise right of legal redemption b. Seller co-owner substantially complied w/ written notice requirement to possible redemptioners …MR denied, appealed to CA (with additional contention that Judge should have inhibited himself, his son being an associate/m ember of law office of Caro's lawyer CA: for Basilia 1. It is w/n the judge's discretion to disqualify himself, besides, no showing that Basilia asked for the Judge's disqualification 2. Right to redeem arose after death of Mario, so it's not part of the hereditary estate but a personal right of the heirs (which would include Basilia) 3. The deed of sale statement of the seller saying that the other co-owners declined to buy was a unilateral statement, not a proof of notice required by law 4. Registration of deed of sale did not erase right to redeem of other heirs who did not receive notice 5. Affidavits attesting to notice would not show that there was clear notice given. Saturnino's unilateral act as co-administrator can't bind his coadministrator who has right to redeem personally as heir 6. Basilia can still redeem >Caro appealed
1.
2.
WON RIGHT OF REDEMPTION COULD STILL BE EXERCISED WHEN WHEN THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE REDEEMED IS IS NOT CO-OWNED ANYMORE (on the theory that through the other co-owner and one of the administrators of the estate of the other co-owner already agreed to subdivide the property) On the theory that there is no longer co-ownership, with partition of the property: -CARAM vs. CA CA - though this case refers to conveyance made after partition: Once a property is subdivided and distributed among the coowners, the community has terminated and there is no reason to sustain any right of legal redemption (purpose is to reduce the number of participants until the community is done away with -no difference w/ respect to conveyance before partition agreement. Basta may partition na, can't exercise right to redeem -on allegation of fraud: fraud fraud: fraud in securing the registration of titles to the land should be supported by clear and convincing evidence -since subdivision title issued, and 1 year from date of entry of subdivision of title no claim for redemption, the Certificate of Title becomes indivisible, cannot be indirectly attacked On the assumption that there is still co-ownership and right of legal redemption still exists -as administratrix, no personality to exercise right …BUTTE vs. UY AND SONS: "While ONS: "While under Sec. 3, Rule 85, Rules of Court, the administrator has the right to the possession of the real and personal estate of the deceased, so far as needed for the payment of the expenses of administration, and the administrator may bring and defend action for the recovery or protection of the property or right of the deceased (Sec. 2, Rule 88), such right of possession and
administration do not include the right of legal redemption of the undivided share sold to a stranger by one of the co-owners after the death of another, because in such case, the right of legal redemption only came into existence when the sale to the stranger was perfected and formed no part of the estate of the deceased co-owner; hence, that right cannot be transmitted to the heir of the deceased co-owner." -not discuss WON she could bring action as heir of a co-owner because her pleading specifically stated that she brought the action in her capacity as administratrix WON action for enforcement of right of redemption already expired? Moot and academic -Caro argues that the tender of payment w/n 30 d from written notice of sale by co-owner already prescribed, and such being a condition precedent to file action for enforcement of right, it already prescribed -court did not rule on it, saying issue was already moot and academic
