G.R. No. 123850, January 5, 2001
SPOUSES TIMOTEO RECAÑA, JR. and ESTER RECAÑA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA PADPAD, LUCILA ARBOLEDA, ENRIQUE ARBOLEDA, AGUSTIN, REYNALDO, RODOLFO and ROLANDO all surnamed ARBOLEDA in representation of their father ERNESTO ARBOLEDA, respondents.

FACTS

The subject property is Lot 6, Block 2 of the Tondo Foreshore Land, originally sold by the Land Tenure Administration to Macario Arboleda pursuant to Republic Act No. 1597 and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 7676 issued in 1962. Petitioners (Spouses Recaña) and private respondents are the children and heirs of Macario Arboleda. Due to unpaid realty taxes, the City Treasurer of Manila auctioned the lot in 1980 under Presidential Decree No. 464. The lot was purchased by Spouses Cirilo and Miguela Montejo, who obtained a transfer certificate of title. On April 25, 1984, the Montejos sold the property to petitioner-spouses, who reimbursed the delinquent taxes and expenses, and they were issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1464015. On March 5, 1991, private respondents filed a case for declaration of co-ownership and partition, claiming that petitioners’ repurchase of the lot redounded to the benefit of all co-heirs. They based their claim on a condition in the deed of sale between Macario Arboleda and the Land Tenure Administration, annotated on the title, which provided that every conveyance shall be subject to repurchase by the original purchaser or his legal heirs within five years from the date of conveyance. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of private respondents, declaring the lot as owned-in-common. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, ordering reimbursement to petitioners for repurchase expenses proportionate to the co-owners’ shares.

ISSUE

Whether the repurchase of the property by petitioner-spouses from the Montejo spouses within the five-year period provided under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1597 (as stipulated in the original deed of sale) is considered a redemption that inures to the benefit of all co-owners, thereby making the property co-owned.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioners’ repurchase of the subject lot within the five-year redemption period stipulated in Section 4 of R.A. No. 1597 (which was annotated on the certificate of title) falls within the purview of a redemption by a co-owner that inures to the benefit of all other co-owners. The Court rejected petitioners’ arguments that: (1) Section 78 of P.D. No. 464 (providing a one-year redemption period for tax delinquency sales) should apply instead; (2) Section 4 of R.A. No. 1597 applies only to voluntary alienations and not to involuntary sales like tax foreclosures; and (3) Section 4 of R.A. No. 1597 had been repealed by P.D. No. 464. The Court found no inconsistency between the two laws, as they govern different subjects—R.A. No. 1597 is a special law governing the alienation of Tondo Foreshore Lands, while P.D. No. 464 is a general law on real property taxation. The special law (R.A. No. 1597) prevails. Therefore, the repurchase by petitioners, who are co-heirs, benefited all co-owners, and the property is held in common.