GR 156536; (October, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156536 ; October 31, 2006
JOSEPH CUA, petitioner, vs. GLORIA A. VARGAS, AURORA VARGAS, RAMON VARGAS, MARITES VARGAS, EDELINA VARGAS AND GEMMA VARGAS, respondents.
FACTS
The late Paulina Vargas left a parcel of land. On February 4, 1994, some of her heirs executed a notarized Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs, partitioning the property. This document was published in a newspaper. However, four heirs, including respondent Gloria Vargas, did not sign it. Later, on November 15, 1994, the same signing heirs executed an Extra Judicial Settlement Among Heirs with Sale, selling their collective 55-square-meter shares to petitioner Joseph Cua. Gloria Vargas claimed she only learned of the sale in May 1995 when a house on the lot was being demolished. She then attempted to redeem the property from Cua, but he refused. Consequently, Gloria and her children filed an action for annulment of the settlement and for legal redemption.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the extrajudicial settlements and the subsequent sale are valid and binding upon the non-signing heirs, and whether the respondents’ right of legal redemption was properly exercised.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The extrajudicial settlements are void as to the non-participating heirs. Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that an extrajudicial settlement shall not be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof. Mere publication of the settlement does not constitute constructive notice to co-heirs who did not take part in its execution. Since respondents did not sign the documents and had no actual knowledge, the settlements cannot affect their rights. Consequently, the property remained in a state of co-ownership. The sale by some co-owners of specific portions, which were not yet physically partitioned, was effectively a sale of undivided interests. This sale is governed by Article 1088 of the Civil Code, which grants the other co-owners a right of legal redemption. The Court found that respondents timely exercised this right. Their written offer to redeem within 30 days from gaining actual knowledge of the sale, followed by the judicial consignation of the redemption price after Cua’s refusal, complied with the legal requirements. The lower courts’ rulings were reversed.