G.R. No. L-27759 April 17, 1970
CRESENCIANO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JULIO CRUZ, ZENAIDA MONTES and ALFONSO MIRANDA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The spouses Julio Cruz and Zenaida Montes owned a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 10680. On December 16, 1965, they sold a portion of this land, described as a 331-square meter area on the northern part, to Cresenciano de la Cruz. The deed of sale included a stipulation that a subdivision plan would be made to segregate the portion sold from the remaining portion. On February 28, 1966, the spouses sold the remaining southern portion of 331 square meters to Alfonso Miranda. Cresenciano de la Cruz filed a complaint seeking to be declared entitled to purchase, by way of pre-emption and legal redemption, the portion sold to Miranda. The parties agreed to submit the case for decision on the pleadings. The Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting the defendants’ counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

1. Whether the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-spouses are co-owners of the parcel of land, giving the plaintiff a right of legal redemption among co-owners.
2. Whether the plaintiff-appellant, as an adjoining owner, is entitled to the right of pre-emption or legal redemption over the portion sold to Miranda.
3. Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages to the defendants.
4. Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to the defendants.

RULING

1. No, the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-spouses are not co-owners. Co-ownership requires an abstract or ideal share in the whole property, not a physically determined and identifiable portion. Here, the portions belonging to the plaintiff (northern half) and the spouses (southern half) were concretely determined and identifiable, even if not yet technically described or separately titled. Dominion over each portion was exclusive to its respective owner. Therefore, no right of legal redemption among co-owners existed.
2. No, the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled, as an adjoining owner, to the right of pre-emption or redemption. Under Article 1622 of the Civil Code, such a right for adjoining owners requires that the land sold be so small and so situated that a major portion cannot be used for any practical purpose within a reasonable time, having been bought merely for speculation. The plaintiff neither alleged nor proved these conditions in his complaint or the pleadings.
3. Yes, the trial court erred in awarding damages. While the defendants’ material allegations in their counterclaim were deemed admitted due to the plaintiff’s failure to specifically deny them, an exception exists for allegations as to the amount of damages, which must be proved. The defendants did not present evidence to prove their alleged damages, having asked for judgment on the pleadings. Therefore, the award of damages was reversed.
4. No, the trial court did not err in awarding attorney’s fees. The award of attorney’s fees is discretionary with the court under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, particularly as the plaintiff’s action was clearly unfounded. The plaintiff did not claim the court abused its discretion in making this award.
The appealed decision was affirmed, except for the award of damages, which was reversed. No costs were pronounced.