Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1923 > December 1923 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20950 December 20, 1923 - AMADO WENCESLAO, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO CALIMON

046 Phil 906:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-20950. December 20, 1923. ]

AMADO WENCESLAO ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FAUSTINO CALIMON, Defendant-Appellant.

Tiburcio Ind. Villacorte for Appellant.

J. Fernando Rodrigo for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. LEGAL REDEMPTION; TIME FOR REDEEMING; MINORITY; RULE APPLICABLE. — In redemption between coheirs with respect to an undivided inheritance, the provision applicable is not the contained in article 1524, but in article 1067, of the Civil Code. But even if the former article be applicable, it cannot be held that the nine-day period thereby fixed has elapsed as against the person having the right to redeem, who is a minor, for prescription does not run against an incapacitated.

2. ID.; LACK OF FUNDS OF REDEEMER. — The fat that the redeemer has no funds to make the redemption is no obstacle to upholding the right of redemption. The lack of funds may render the right ineffective, but does not affect is existence.

3. ID.; OFFER TO REDEEM MADE BY A FATHER ON BEHALF OF HIS CHILDREN; VALIDITY OF. — The offer to redeem made by a father on behalf of his children in and out of court. Such an offer is not an act of administration, but of representation of his children in their rights.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J. :


This is a case of a legal redemption sanctioned by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, to the effect that the defendant should resell to the plaintiffs a four-fifth part of a parcel of land situated in the barrio of Baluarte, municipality of Bulacan, described in the complaint.

Three principal questions are raised by the appellant in his brief, the first relating to the period of nine days for the redemption, the second to the price of the repurchase, and the third to the capacity of the redeemers.

As to the first point, even supposing the nine days fixed by article 1524 of the Civil Code to have expired, which is not the case, the provision applicable here is that contained in article 1067, as the matter concerns heirs and an inheritance not yet distributed, according to the stipulated of facts. But even considering article 1524 to be applicable, the fact is that the plaintiffs are minors and have no legal guardian. The period fixed in said article could not have run against them. Contra non valentem agere non currit prescriptio. This principle is recognized in our substantive law and is expressly enshrined by sections 42 and 45 of our Code of Civil Procedure).

With regard to the price, the evidence and circumstances of the case sufficiently show that the defendant did not pay but P7,700 and a note for P5,000, the effectiveness of which depends upon the said defendant’s taking possession of the land.

The evidence does not establish that this action was brought on behalf of Anselmo Hilario. The admission of the affidavit Exhibit A does not constitute any error. Those who have signed it have testified in court against what they had stated in said document (section 343, Code of Civil Procedure).

It is no obstacle to the upholding of the right of redemption that the redeemers have no money to make the redemption. The lack of funds may render such a right inefficacious, but does not affect its existence. The plaintiffs cannot exercise such right unless they reimburse the purchaser with the purchase price paid by him (article 1067, Civil Code).

As to the offer to redeem made by Urbano Wenceslao on behalf of his children, the herein plaintiffs, we think it is valid. He is the natural guardian of his children whom he represents in court and out of court. Such an offer was not an act of administration of property but of representation of his children in their rights.

We find in the proceeding no sufficient ground for altering the judgment appealed from; wherefore the same is hereby affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1923 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20819 December 3, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. BONIFACIO M. MANALILI

    046 Phil 891

  • December 8, 1923 - VICENTE DIAZ v. RUPERTO KAPUNAN

    045 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 20410 December 10, 1923 - JAMES J. MCCARTHY v. BARBER STEAMSHIP LINES

    045 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 21188 December 10, 1923 - CANDIDA GRANADOS v. LORENZO BANDELARIA

    045 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. 20992 December 11, 1923 - UMBERTO DE POLI v. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    045 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 21044 December 11, 1923 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLES D. GOOCH

    045 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. L-21422 December 12, 1923 - NICANOR JACINTO v. FRANK W. CARPENTER

    046 Phil 893

  • G.R. No. 20875 December 13, 1923 - VICENTE ABAOAG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    045 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 20955 December 13, 1923 - BENEDICTO RUIZ v. SEGUNDO DALIO

    045 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. L-19900 December 15, 1923 - FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE v. CARMEN SACKERMANN VDA. DE MACLEOD, ET AL.

    046 Phil 897

  • G.R. No. 20588 December 17, 1923 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. FRANCISCO HIZON Y SINGIAN

    045 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. L-20950 December 20, 1923 - AMADO WENCESLAO, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO CALIMON

    046 Phil 906

  • G.R. Nos. 20117-20130 & 20261-20314 December 20, 1923 - LIBERATO ULANDAY v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    045 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 20726 December 20, 1923 - ALBALADEJO Y CIA. v. PHIL. REFINING CO.

    045 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 20927 December 21, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO BALOTAN

    045 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 20933 December 22, 1923 - FRED M. HARDEN v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS

    045 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 20993A December 22, 1923 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. J. R. HERRIDGE

    045 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 21049 December 22, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC PEREZ

    045 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 21177 December 22, 1923 - TEOFILA DIONISION v. ANGELA DIONISIO

    045 Phil 609