Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and
Regalado, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 101522 May 28, 1993
LEONARDO MARIANO, AVELINA TIGUE, LAZARO
MARIANO, MERCEDES SAN PEDRO, DIONISIA M.
AQUINO, and JOSE N.T. AQUINO, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, (Sixteenth Division),
GRACE GOSIENGFIAO, assisted by her husband
GERMAN GALCOS; ESTER GOSIENGFIAO, assisted
by her husband AMADOR BITONA; FRANCISCO
GOSIENGFIAO, JR., NORMA GOSIENGFIAO, and
PINKY ROSE GUENO, respondents.
The Baristers Law Office for petitioners.
Simeon T. Agustin for private respondents.
NOCON, J.:
Before Us is a petition foe review of the decision, dated
May 13, 1991 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
13122, entitled Grace Gosiengfiao, et al. v. Leonardo
Mariano v. Amparo Gosiengfiao 1 raising as issue the
distinction between Article 1088 2 and Article 1620 3 of
the Civil Code.
The Court of Appeals summarized the facts as follows:
It appears on record that the decedent
Francisco Gosiengfiao is the registered owner
of a residential lot located at Ugac Sur,
Tuguegarao, Cagayan, particularly described as
follows, to wit:
"The eastern portion of Lot 1351, Tuguegarao
Cadastre, and after its segregation now
designated as Lot 1351-A, Plan PSD-67391,
with an area of 1,1346 square meters."
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-2416 recorded in the Register of Deeds of
Cagayan.
The lot in question was mortgaged by the
decedent to the Rural Bank of Tuguegarao
(designated as Mortgagee bank, for brevity) on
Petitioners
allege
that
upon
the
facts
and
circumstances of the present case, respondents failed
to exercise their right of legal redemption during the
period provided by law, citing as authority the case of
Conejero, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al. 9 wherein the
Court adopted the principle that the giving of a copy of
a deed is equivalent to the notice as required by law in
legal redemption.
simplified
by
the
1. Whether or not the property in dispute is still coowned or has actually been partitioned thereby
terminating the co-ownership;
2. If otherwise, whether or not the plaintiffs-appellees
could still exercise the rights of redemption.
The respondent court disagreed with the findings of the
trial court and was of the view "that laws and
jurisprudence favor the appellants, hence we reverse."
The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision
reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered,
the
judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED,
and a new one is entered dismissing the
Complaint and ordering Third-Party Defendants
to pay on the Third Party Complaint, the Third
Party Plaintiffs the amount of P10,000.00 by
way of attorney's fees.
10
11
12
13
Q Do you know
when, for the first time,
did your mother and
your sister came to
know of this sale?
A Personally, I do not
know when they came
upon that knowledge.
(TSN, 5-22-86, pp. 1011).
ATTY. HERMOSO:
Q Did you ever
consult your mother or
your sister of your
desire
to
sell
the
property?
14
A No, sir.
Q Why not?
A
Because
I
personally believe that
what we were selling
then were but our right
to the said property.
Q How about your
brother
Danilo
Hermoso, did he inform
your mother and sister
about the sale of the
property?
xxx xxx xxx
A Danilo Hermoso,
my brother, told me
that he did not inform
15
16
BRION, J.:
At issue in this petition is the timeliness of the exercise
of the right of legal redemption that this Court has
recognized in a final and executory decision.
The petitioners, heirs of Francisco Gosiengfiao
(petitioner-heirs), assail in this Rule 45 petition for
review on certiorari the January 17, 2003 decision and
September 9, 2003 resolution of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 63093. 1 The assailed CA
decision ruled that the thirty-day period for the
exercise of the right of legal redemption should be
counted, not from the notice of sale by the vendor but,
from the finality of the judgment of this Court.
BACKGROUND FACTS
I. G.R. No. 101522 - Mariano v. Court of Appeals
The previous case where we recognized the petitionerheirs right of legal redemption is Mariano v. CA. 2 To
quote, by way of background, the factual antecedents
that Mariano recognized:
It appears on record that the decedent Francisco
Gosiengfiao is the registered owner of a residential lot
located at Ugac Sur, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, particularly
described as follows, to wit:
The eastern portion of Lot 1351, Tuguegarao Cadastre,
and after its segregation now designated as Lot 1351A, Plan PSD-67391, with an area of 1,346 square
meters.
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T2416 recorded in the Register of Deeds of Cagayan.
17
18
19
filed an
that the
to law,
and this
THE PETITION
20
21
Both the letter and spirit of the New Civil Code argue
against any attempt to widen the scope of the notice
specified in Article 1088 by including therein any other
kind of notice, such as verbal or by registration. If the
intention of the law had been to include verbal notice
or any other means of information as sufficient to give
the effect of this notice, then there would have been no
necessity or reasons to specify in Article 1088 of the
New Civil Code that the said notice be made in writing
for, under the old law, a verbal notice or information
was sufficient.
xxx
The ruling in Castillo v. Samonte, supra, was reiterated
in the case of Garcia v. Calaliman (G.R. No. 26855, April
17, 1989, 172 SCRA 201) where We also discussed the
reason for the requirement of the written notice. We
said:
Consistent with aforesaid ruling, in the interpretation of
a related provision (Article 1623 of the New Civil Code)
this Court had stressed that written notice is
indispensable, actual knowledge of the sale acquired in
some
other
manners
by
the
redemptioner,
notwithstanding. He or she is still entitled to written
notice, as exacted by the code to remove all
uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and its validity,
and to quiet any doubt that the alienation is not
definitive. The law not having provided for any
alternative, the method of notifications remains
exclusive, though the Code does not prescribe any
particular form of written notice nor any distinctive
method for written notification of redemption (Conejero
et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., 16 SCRA 775 [1966];
Etcuban v. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 507 [1987];
Cabrera v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 75069, April 15, 1988).
We also made the factual finding that:
22
CRUZ, J.:
The question is sometimes asked, in serious inquiry or
in curious conjecture, whether we are a court of law or
a court of justice. Do we apply the law even if it is
unjust or do we administer justice even against the
law? Thus queried, we do not equivocate. The answer
is that we do neither because we are a court both of
law and of justice. We apply the law with justice for
that is our mission and purpose in the scheme of our
Republic. This case is an illustration.
Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso
shares a parcel of land registered in 'the name of their
deceased parents under OCT No. 10977 of the Registry
of Deeds of Tarlac. 1
On March 15, 1963, one of them, Celestino Padua,
transferred his undivided share of the herein
petitioners for the sum of P550.00 by way of absolute
sale. 2 One year later, on April 22, 1964, Eustaquia
Padua, his sister, sold her own share to the same
vendees, in an instrument denominated "Con Pacto de
Retro Sale," for the sum of P 440.00. 3
By virtue of such agreements, the petitioners occupied,
after the said sales, an area corresponding to two-fifths
of the said lot, representing the portions sold to them.
The vendees subsequently enclosed the same with a
fence. In 1975, with their consent, their son Eduardo
Alonzo and his wife built a semi-concrete house on a
part of the enclosed area. 4
23
24
April 5, 1934
25
26
xxx
xxx
27
28
BIDIN, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the August
31, 1968 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. 34750-R'* entitled "Antonio J. Alberto, Jr., thru his
mother as his natural guardian, Andrea Jongco,
plaintiff-appellant, vs. Natividad del Rosario Vda. de
Alberto, in her individual capacity and as judicial
guardian of the minors, Lourdes Alberto and Antonio
Alberto, Jr., defendants-appellees", reversing the
August 10, 1964. Decision of the then Court of First
Instance of Manila.
The case originated from a complaint for
acknowledgment and partition filed on September 8,
1960 with the then Court of First Instance of Manila by
the herein private respondent, a minor, 18 years of
age, assisted by his mother, Andrea Jongco, as his
natural guardian, against the herein petitioners (Record
on Appeal, pp. 2-8). In the said Complaint, private
respondent alleged, in substance, that in 1941 his
alleged father, Antonio C. Alberto, and his mother,
Andrea Jongco, lived together as husband and wife and
as a result of which, he was born on September 10,
1942; that during the time that his alleged father and
mother lived together as husband and wife and up to
the time of his birth, both were single and had no legal
impediment to marry each other; that after his birth,
his father and mother continued living together as
husband and wife, his father supporting them and
introducing him to the public as his natural child; that
even the family of his father recognized him as such;
29
VII
30
I.
It is the contention of petitioners that inasmuch as the
instant case was filed on September 8, 1960, almost
five (5) years after the enactment of R.A. No. 1401
creating the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, the
questions of paternity and acknowledgment fall beyond
the jurisdictional pale of the Court of First Instance of
Manila and instead comes within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court. While petitioners admitted that this objection to
lack of jurisdiction by the Court of First Instance of
Manila over the subject matter of the present action
had not been raised either in the said court or in the
Court of Appeals and is brought to this Court for
resolution for the first time on appeal, they contend
that a party may object to the jurisdiction of the court
31
32
33
34
March 7, 2000
35
36
37
38
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, LapuLapu City, is REINSTATED.
No pronouncement as to costs.1wphi1.nt
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Kapunan, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
VASQUEZ, J.:
In his lifetime, Teodoro Abenojar owned several parcels
of land located in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and a house
and lot in Manila. The said properties were all covered
by Torrens Titles in his name. He died intestate in
Urdaneta, on March 20, 1948.
On February 3, 1949, private respondents Maxima
Andrada, the surviving spouse of Teodoro Abenojar,
and Severino Abenojar, executed a public document,
entitled "Extra-Judicial Agreement of Partition" whereby
they adjudicated between themselves the properties
left by Teodoro Abenojar. Severino Abenojar
represented himself in said document as "the only
forced heir and descendant" of the late Teodoro
Abenojar.
On March 6, 1968, petitioners herein filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan presided
over by the respondent Judge seeking a judicial
declaration that they are legal heirs of the deceased
Teodoro Abenojar, and that private respondents be
ordered to surrender the ownership and possession of
some of the properties that they acquired under the
deed of extra-judicial settlement corresponding to the
shares of the petitioners and that the said deed of
extra- judicial settlement and the subsequent deed of
donation executed in favor of private respondents,
spouses Liberata Abenojar and Jose Serrano, in
consequence thereof be declared nun and void.
In their complaint, petitioners Maria, Segundo, Marcial
and Lucio, all surnamed LANDAYAN (the rest of the
petitioners being their respective spouses), alleged
39
40