G.R. No. 172640; July 3, 2009
VICTORIANO DELA PEÑA, et al., Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES VICENTE ALONZO and LIGAYA DELA PEÑA, herein substituted by their heirs LERMA MANLICLIC, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners and respondent Ligaya Dela Peña are heirs of the late Spouses Ignacio and Engracia Dela Peña. The spouses owned an unregistered parcel of land in Pampanga. Portions of this land were mortgaged to San Fernando Rural Bank in 1964 and 1966. Due to non-payment, the bank foreclosed and acquired these portions through public auctions in 1968 and 1972. The spouses failed to redeem the property, and certificates of sale were issued to the bank. Both parents died without having redeemed the land.
In 1992, respondents purchased a 7,125-square meter portion of the property directly from the San Fernando Rural Bank, prompted by a bank notice offering priority to the heirs. The petitioners then demanded partition, claiming co-ownership. Upon refusal, they filed an action for judicial partition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering partition and holding that the bank’s notice indicated an intent to sell to all heirs, thus the respondents’ purchase inured to the benefit of all.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners have a right to demand judicial partition of the property purchased by the respondents from San Fernando Rural Bank.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the complete and lawful transfer of ownership. The original property of the deceased spouses was validly acquired by San Fernando Rural Bank through foreclosure and public auction. The failure to exercise the right of redemption within the statutory period resulted in the consolidation of ownership in the bank. Consequently, upon the death of the spouses, they no longer owned the property, and thus, there was no hereditary estate to be transmitted to their heirs regarding that land.
The subsequent purchase by the respondents was a transaction entirely separate from the succession. They bought the property from the bank in their own capacity, using their own resources, and there was no evidence presented to prove they acted as representatives or agents for all the heirs. The bank’s internal policy of giving notice to heirs was merely a preferential opportunity to purchase, not a resurrection of a right of redemption or an obligation to buy for the benefit of others. Since the respondents became the absolute owners by virtue of a valid sale, no co-ownership between them and the petitioners was created. An action for partition presupposes a co-ownership; absent this, the action must fail. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals on these points are conclusive.