G.R. No. L-47494. May 15, 1978.
AIDA ROBLES, Accompanied by her husband Rafael Penolio, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANICETO B. PARREÑO, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aida Robles is a granddaughter and co-heir of the late Eligio Robles, entitled to a 1/44 share in two disputed properties forming part of his conjugal estate. The other co-heirs, excluding Aida, executed a general power of attorney authorizing Francisco Robles to alienate the properties. Acting under this authority, Francisco sold the entirety of the properties to respondent Aniceto Parreño. The power of attorney was registered and treated as a declaration of heirship, leading the Register of Deeds to issue new transfer certificates of title in Parreño’s name for the whole properties, thereby excluding Aida’s share.
Aida filed a complaint against Parreño and the Register of Deeds for the cancellation of the titles issued to Parreño and to be allowed to redeem the properties as a co-heir under Article 1088 of the Civil Code. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals set aside the dismissal but ordered a remand, ruling that the co-heir vendors were indispensable parties who must be impleaded. The appellate court reasoned that the vendors needed to justify the sale’s legality to avoid potential civil or criminal liability, especially since they had sold the entirety claiming full ownership and had excluded Aida from their declaration of heirship.

ISSUE

Whether the co-heir vendors are indispensable parties in an action for legal redemption and cancellation of titles filed by a co-heir against the vendee.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered the remand of the appeal for determination on its merits, holding that the co-heir vendors are not indispensable parties.
The legal logic is clear. Petitioner’s principal action is one for legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code, which grants co-heirs the right to be subrogated to the rights of a purchaser of hereditary rights from a co-heir. In such an action, the only indispensable parties are the redeeming co-heir and the vendee-purchaser. The Court, citing Castillo vs. Samonte, explicitly ruled that the vendor co-heir, while a necessary party, is not indispensable in the sense that the matter can be completely adjudicated without their presence. The vendee, Parreño, is conclusively presumed to know the law that co-heirs have a right of redemption when an undivided hereditary right is sold. If the vendee believes he has a claim for warranty against the vendors, it is his duty to file a third-party complaint.
Furthermore, the action for cancellation of titles is directed against the Register of Deeds for issuing titles for the whole property in disregard of the petitioner’s share and against existing laws, and against the vendee as the holder of those titles. The validity of the sale by the co-heirs is not the primary issue; the core issue is the enforcement of the petitioner’s preemptive right of redemption against the vendee. Therefore, the case can proceed to a final adjudication on the merits—specifically, whether Aida is a co-heir entitled to redeem—without the joinder of the vendor co-heirs.