G.R. No. L-13146; January 30, 1960
VALENTIN CASTILLO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARTURO SAMONTE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Romualda Meneses died, leaving as compulsory heirs her children Valentin Castillo, Gregorio Castillo, Amando Castillo, Jose Castillo, and Melencia Castillo. They inherited an unregistered residential land in Bambang, Bulacan, which remained undivided. On July 13, 1953, one heir, Gregorio Castillo, without providing written notice to his co-heirs, sold his undivided 1/5 interest in the property to Arturo Samonte for P1,000. The deed of sale was registered with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on July 16, 1953. In September 1956, during a cadastral survey, Valentin Castillo first learned of the sale. On September 15, 1956, he offered to redeem the property from Samonte, who refused. On December 19, 1956, Castillo filed a complaint to compel reconveyance.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not ordering the inclusion of the vendor-heir Gregorio Castillo as a party to the case.
2. Whether Valentin Castillo validly exercised his right of legal redemption under Article 1088 of the New Civil Code.
3. Whether the award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiff was proper.

RULING

1. On the inclusion of the vendor-heir: The trial court did not err. The vendor-heir, while a necessary party, was not an indispensable party. The deed of sale expressly stated it involved an undivided share in a property owned jointly with the vendor’s brothers and nephew. The vendee (Samonte) is conclusively presumed to know the law, particularly Article 1088, granting co-heirs the right of redemption. He was a vendee with notice. If Samonte had a claim against the vendor for warranty, it was his duty to file a third-party complaint under the Rules of Court.
2. On the right of legal redemption: Valentin Castillo validly exercised his right. Article 1088 of the New Civil Code requires that co-heirs be notified in writing of the sale to start the one-month redemption period. Here, no written notice was given to the co-heirs. The registration of the deed of sale did not constitute the written notice required by Article 1088, as that provision of the Land Registration Act applies only to registered lands, and the subject property was unregistered. Castillo’s offer to redeem on September 15, 1956, made within one month of his actual knowledge in September 1956, complied with the condition precedent for exercising the right. The one-month period in Article 1088 is not a prescriptive period but a condition precedent; the action to enforce the redemption is governed by the general Statute of Limitations. By offering redemption within the month from knowledge, Castillo preserved his right to seek judicial enforcement.
3. On the award of attorney’s fees: The award of attorney’s fees was improper. Under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, attorney’s fees are not recoverable as part of damages unless specific exceptions apply, such as when the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith. The mere fact that a defense is untenable does not justify an award. The record did not show that Samonte acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing the redemption offer. Therefore, the award was deleted.
DISPOSITIVE: The appealed decision was MODIFIED by deleting the award of attorney’s fees. In all other respects, the judgment was AFFIRMED. Costs against the defendant-appellant.