G.R. No. L-7385, May 19, 1955
QUIRICO L. SATURNINO, petitioner, vs. FELIZA LUZ PAULINO, MAXIMO DALEJA, JUANA LUCAS, NEMESIO LUCAS, DONATA GUILLERMO, and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Upon the death of Jaime Luz Paulino on February 10, 1937, he was survived by his children Timoteo, Esteban, Macario, and Feliza, all surnamed Luz Paulino, and a grandson, Quirico L. Saturnino, son of his deceased daughter Antonia. Among the properties left was a house and lot known as Lot No. 11366 of the Laoag Cadastre. On October 22, 1945, Feliza Luz Paulino executed a deed of absolute sale of said property to the spouses Maximo Daleja and Juana Lucas and Nemesio Lucas and Donata Guillermo for P1,200. Quirico L. Saturnino, claiming to be a co-heir, learned of the sale and, desiring to exercise his right of legal redemption, offered verbally and in writing on October 23 and 29, 1945, to reimburse the vendees for 4/5 of the purchase price plus expenses, but they refused. On October 30, 1945, Saturnino filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte (Civil Case No. 23) against the vendors and vendees, depositing P960 and P50 with the clerk of court, seeking a declaration that the sale was illegal as to his one-fifth share, reimbursement to the vendees, reconveyance, and damages. The defendants answered, alleging an extrajudicial partition on April 25, 1937, wherein the residential lot was given exclusively to Feliza, and counterclaimed for damages. Meanwhile, on November 19, 1945, Saturnino filed a petition for probate of Jaime Luz Paulino’s will (Special Proceeding Case No. 37), which was allowed on July 6, 1949; the will provided for equal distribution among the heirs. On March 10, 1950, defendants filed a supplemental answer in Civil Case No. 23, alleging Saturnino had no legal capacity to sue because the property was part of an estate under administration. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment on December 2, 1950, declaring the sale null and void as to one-fifth of the lot, declaring Saturnino owner of that undivided share, and ordering the vendees to accept reimbursement and execute a deed of reconveyance. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint, holding that the property was in custodia legis due to the pending testate proceedings, and that until partition or adjudication, the heirs’ rights were merely in the nature of hope, so Saturnino could not exercise a right of legal redemption or claim any share.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the property was in custodia legis and that the heirs had no vested rights pending partition, thereby precluding Saturnino from exercising his right of legal redemption as a co-heir.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that under Article 657 of the Civil Code of Spain (in force at the time of Jaime Luz Paulino’s death), the rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of death, and under Article 661, the heirs succeed to all rights and obligations of the deceased by the mere fact of death. Thus, Saturnino was an heir from the moment of death and could exercise his rights as such, including the right of legal redemption under Article 1067 (now Article 1088 of the Civil Code of the Philippines). This right exists before partition; after partition, the heirs become co-owners and may redeem under co-ownership rules, but not as co-heirs. The Court also held that the property was not in custodia legis at the time of sale (October 22, 1945) or when the action was filed, as the testate proceedings began later (November 19, 1945), and the vendees remained in possession without any attempt by the administrator to take custody. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ dismissal based on a prejudicial question was erroneous.