GR 162421; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162421; August 31, 2007
NELSON CABALES and RITO CABALES, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JESUS FELIANO and ANUNCIACION FELIANO, Respondents.
FACTS
Rufino Cabales died in 1966, leaving a parcel of land to his wife Saturnina and six children, including petitioner Rito and Alberto (father of petitioner Nelson). In 1971, three co-owner siblings sold the property to Dr. Cayetano Corrompido under a pacto de retro sale. Alberto died in 1972. In 1975, within the redemption period, Saturnina paid Alberto’s share of the repurchase price. On the same date, Saturnina and her four other children sold the redeemed property to respondent spouses Feliano. The deed stated that the shares of the minor heirs, Alberto’s heirs and Rito, were held in trust by the buyers until they reached age 21. In 1986, Rito, then 24, acknowledged receipt of his share of the proceeds. Nelson learned of the sale in 1988 and in 1995, petitioners filed a complaint for legal redemption.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners Nelson and Rito Cabales retain co-ownership rights over the subject property and possess the right of legal redemption.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition but modified the appellate decision regarding ownership. It held that upon Rufino’s death, a co-ownership was created among his heirs. Nelson, as an heir of Alberto, inherited a 1/7 undivided share. Saturnina’s payment of Alberto’s redemption share did not constitute subrogation; it was merely an advance for the benefit of his estate. Therefore, Nelson remained a co-owner. However, his right of legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code had prescribed. The 30-day period to exercise redemption from written notice of the sale began in 1988 when he learned of the sale from his uncle Rito. His filing in 1995 was far beyond this period.
For Rito, the sale of his minor’s share by Saturnina, without proper court authority as guardian, was initially unenforceable. However, his act of accepting his share of the proceeds in 1986 at age 24 constituted ratification of the sale, thereby extinguishing his ownership and redemption rights. The Court affirmed the denial of redemption but ordered the modification of the title to reflect Nelson’s 1/7 co-ownership share with his mother, pro indiviso with the respondents who own the remaining 6/7.