G.R. No. L-34803. January 17, 1985.
TRIFONA SEECHUNG-FEDERIS, petitioner, vs. HON. DELFIN VIR. SUÑGA, IGMEDIO ARCILLA, PACITA SEECHUNG-BERNAS, CEFERINA SEECHUNG-POBRE, and LUIS RECATO DY, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves the estate of the late Benito Seechung. In 1967, the probate court authorized the executor to sell an estate property for not less than P200,000. After an offer of P180,000 was made, some heirs moved for approval, but petitioner Trifona Seechung-Federis later objected. The court scheduled a conference for January 23, 1969, warning that absent heirs would forfeit their right to object. Petitioner, despite notice, was absent. At the conference, the heirs present agreed to partition the lot into eastern and western halves. The eastern half, pertaining to four heirs, was agreed to be sold to respondent Luis Recato Dy for P105,000. The western half was to be retained by the other four heirs, including petitioner. The court embodied this agreement in an order.
Petitioner later sought reconsideration, arguing the sale was invalid and asserting her right of legal pre-emption/redemption as a co-owner. She claimed the January 17, 1969 order declaring forfeiture for non-appearance was contrary to law and that the sale of a definite portion prior to partition was invalid.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the partition and sale of a portion of the estate property, as approved by the probate court, is valid and binding on an absent heir, and whether such heir retains a right of legal pre-emption or redemption.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the partition and sale and dismissed the petition. The legal logic is clear: petitioner’s voluntary absence from the court-ordered conference, despite prior notice with a warning, constituted a waiver of her right to object to the agreements reached by her co-heirs in her absence. The partition and sale were not unilateral impositions but the result of a voluntary agreement among the present heirs, which the court merely approved. The finding of the Court of Appeals that this was a consensual arrangement is binding and supported by evidence.
Consequently, petitioner’s claim of a right of legal pre-emption or redemption under Articles 1088 and 1623 of the Civil Code is without merit. The Court ruled that the heirs’ prior conformity to the court’s 1967 order authorizing the sale of the property constituted a waiver of their pre-emptive rights and served as sufficient notice of the intention to sell, supplanting the formal written notice requirement. Furthermore, after the partition was effected and the eastern half was assigned to the four vendor-heirs, petitioner ceased to be a co-owner of that specific portion. Therefore, the sale was not a sale by a co-owner to a stranger of an undivided interest but a sale by absolute owners of a specific, partitioned property, extinguishing any pre-emptive right. The orders of the probate court were affirmed.