Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > February 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16036 February 28, 1963 - FLORENTINA UMENGAN v. REMIGIO BUTUCAN, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16036. February 28, 1963.]

FLORENTINA UMENGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATTY. REMIGIO BUTUCAN, respondent-appellee, MANUEL G. MANZANO and RAMONA S. PABLO, Respondents-Appellants.

Alfredo J. Donato for Petitioner-Appellant.

Atty. Remigio Butacan for and in his own behalf as Respondent-Appellee.

Manuel G. Manzano for and in his own behalf as Respondent-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC LANDS; RIGHT OF REDEMPTION; APPLICABLE TO BOTH VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES. — The right of redemption within five years given to the homesteader himself, his widow or legal heirs, which cannot be waived by the party entitled thereto, applies with equal force to both voluntary and involuntary conveyances. The law does not distinguish between the two kinds of conveyances.

2. ID.; ID.; WHO MAY EXERCISE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION. — Where the vendor is still living, it is he who had the right of redemption.

3. LEGAL REDEMPTION; SALE MADE AFTER PROPERTIES HAD BEEN PARTITIONED. The right of redemption given to a co-heir or co-owner in case any one of the other co-heirs or co-owners sells his share to a third person cannot be invoked where the sale was made after the properties owned in common had already been partitioned.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Plaintiff Florentina Umengan and defendant Angeles Umengan were sisters of the half-blood. Their common father, Severino Umengan, applied for two homesteads in his lifetime. One parcel was finally adjudicated after his death and the corresponding original certificate of title (No. 1047) was issued to the Heirs of Severino Umengan." The other parcel was adjudicated to him personally and original certificate of title No. 265 was issued in his name. Subsequently Angeles Umengan filed an action for partition against Florentina in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan (Civil Case No. 389-A). Judgment was rendered there and later affirmed by the Court of Appeals dividing the two parcels between the sisters thus: 3.8014 hectares of the first and 0.75 hectares of the second for Angeles; and 3.8014 hectares of the first and 2.25 hectares of the second for Florentina. In the same judgment Florentina who had had exclusive possession of the properties, was adjudged to pay to Angeles the sum of P1,600.00 as damages.

The said amount not having been paid a writ of execution was issued. The shares and interests of Florentina were levied upon and sold at public auction on February 22 1958, wherein Angeles was the sole bidder. On June 3, 1958, Angeles in turn sold those shares and interests acquired by her to Ramona S. Pablo for the sum of P2,800.00. Florentina’s right to redeem on or before February 22, 1959 was expressly reserved in the document of sale.

On June 11, 1958 Angeles likewise sold her own shares in the two homestead properties to Mario S. Pablo for the sum of P4,500.00.

On February 21, 1959 Florentina Umengan commenced the present action in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan against the provincial sheriff, to enjoin him from issuing a final deed of sale of the properties subject of the auction; Attorney Manuel Manzano as attorney-in-fact of Angeles Umengan, who was then in the United States; Ramona S. Pablo as vendee of Florentina’s acquired by Angeles; and Mario S. Pablo as vendee of the shares of Angeles herself. The prayer in the complaint against these last two defendants was "that an order he issued declaring the right of the herein petitioner (plaintiff) as legal heir of Severino Umengan to repurchase within five years, from June 3, 1958 and June 11, 1958 (or from February 22, 1958), whichever property is affected the properties (sic) sold by Angeles Umengan her half-sister to the vendee — respondents (defendants), the period to redeem the auction sale against her, also within a period of five years, as provided for under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act 141."cralaw virtua1aw library

On April 15, 1959 the court a quo rendered judgment:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Ordering the defendant Ramona S. Pablo to resell the two portions of land in question which were sold at public auction in Civil Case No. 389 for P2,800.00;

(b) Dismissing the complaint with respect to the defendant Attys. Remigio Butacan and Manuel G. Manzano and Dr. Mario Pablo; and

(c) Without pronouncement as to costs.

In the event that the defendant Ramona S. Pablo fails to execute the deed of resale within the period of 20 days from the time this decision becomes final, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to execute it pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

SO ORDERED.

The case is now before us on appeal by plaintiff and by defendants Manuel Manzano and Ramona S. Pablo. The first question is whether, with respect to the shares of Florentina Umengan in the two parcels of land which were sold at public auction to Angeles Umengan on February 22, 1958 and in turn sold by the latter to Ramona S. Pablo on the following June 3, the period of redemption is one year pursuant to section 26 of Rule 39, or five years under section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 Defendant Ramona S. Pablo contends that the cited provision of the Public Land Act does not apply despite the fact that the lands in question were originally acquired as homesteads, because the right of redemption within five years given to the homesteader himself, his widow or legal heirs, refers exclusively to voluntary conveyances and not to involuntary ones, such as the sale on execution of Florentina’s shares to satisfy the judgment against her. The contention is without merit. The law does not distinguish between the two kinds of conveyances. The reason for allowing redemption within five years, which cannot even be waived by the party entitled thereto, obtains with equal force in both. Those who are permitted to acquire public lands by working them as homesteads, being hardly in a position to become property-owners otherwise, are afforded the additional protection that in case their acquisition are sold they or their heirs shall have enough time to effectuate the repurchase. A question more or less similar to that here presented was decided by us in case of Cassion v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. L-3540, July 30, 1951. The plaintiffs there mortgaged two parcels of homestead land to the bank to secure a promissory note. Upon default; the mortgage was foreclosed; the bank bought the lands at public auction and later on sold them to the other defendants. Applying the provisions of Public Land Act, we held that the plaintiffs had a right to repurchase within five years.

The foregoing considerations lead us to the next point at issue. It will be noted that in her complaint the plaintiff does not seek to enforce her right to repurchase, but rather to obtain a declaration from the court that she has a right to do so within five years under section 119 of Commonwealth Act 141. What is prayed for is in the nature of declaratory relief under Rule 66. Whether the remedy is proper or not in the light of facts of this case is not among the issues raised by the parties. But as pointed out by plaintiff in her brief, the trial’ court erred in ordering defendant Ramona S. Pablo to resell to her the properties (which were sold at public auctions on February 22, 1958) within a period of twenty (20) days from the time the judgment becomes final, in effect reducing the five-year period granted by the Public Land Act. While the relief thus granted is not really in accordance with the relief asked for, it should not be noted that the five-year period is due to expire very shortly (February 22, 1963), which may possibly be even before this decision is promulgated, and consequently no such reduction of the five-year period will actually result by reserving to plaintiff her right of redemption within twenty (20) days from the time judgment becomes final. This, it should be repeated, concerns the plaintiff’s shares in the two parcels of land in question which were sold at public auction to Angeles Umengan.

With respect to the shares of Angeles herself in the same properties, which she sold absolutely to defendant Mario S. Pablo on June 11, 1958, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint. Such sale does not come within the purview of section 119 of the Public Land Act. Angeles Umengan is still living and consequently it is she and not Florentina Umengan who has the right of repurchase. Florentina cannot claim that right as an heir of her deceased father, Severino Umengan, because the properties had already been partitioned between the two sisters and it was Angeles — not Severino — who executed the sale. Plaintiff invokes Articles 1088 and 1620 of the Civil Code regarding the right of redemption given to a co-heir or co-owner in case any one of the other co-heirs or co-owners sells his share to a third person. In the first place, as already noted, the properties here involved had already been partitioned when Angeles Umengan sold her shares; and secondly, even assuming that they were still Common properties, the right of redemption may be exercised only within a period of thirty days.

Insofar as the judgment appealed from orders defendant Ramona S. Pablo to execute a deed of resale in favor of plaintiff within a period of twenty (20) days from the time the decision becomes final, the said judgment is hereby affirmed, with the modification that such deed of resale shall be executed upon payment by the plaintiff of the redemption price. The judgment is also affirmed in all other respects, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





February-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16187 February 27, 1963 - MINORS BENIGNO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-13057 February 27, 1963 - DELFIN MONTANO v. MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16187 February 27, 1963 - MINORS BENIGNO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-16347 February 27, 1963 - JOSE B. YUSAY v. JUANITO TUGBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16797 February 27, 1963 - RODRIGO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. SOCORRO A. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16848 February 27, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC

  • G.R. No. L-18182 February 27, 1963 - ALFREDO V. PEREZ v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18193 February 27, 1963 - NICASIO BERNALDES, SR., ET AL. v. BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18374 February 27, 1963 - PILAR G. VDA. DE KRAUT v. MANUEL LONTOK

  • G.R. No. L-18425 February 27, 1963 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY

  • G.R. No. L-19145 February 27, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO DE LA MERCED

  • G.R. No. L-12444 February 28, 1963 - STATES MARINE CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-14947 February 28, 1963 - MAURICIO MIRANO, ET AL. v. MADRIGAL & COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16036 February 28, 1963 - FLORENTINA UMENGAN v. REMIGIO BUTUCAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16163 February 28, 1963 - IGNACIO SATURNINO v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16570 February 28, 1963 - ARSENIO SOLIDUM, ET AL. v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-16602 February 28, 1963 - SERGIO F. NAGUIAT v. JACINTO ARCILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17362 and L-17367-69 February 28, 1963 - MADRlGAL SHIPPING CO. v. MONICA MELAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17475 February 28, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EAST AMERICAN COMMERCIAL. CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17775 February 28, 1963 - JAIME VILLAFUERTE v. ELIAS T. MARFIL

  • G.R. No. L-17931 February 28, 1963 - CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO., INC. v. HON. PEDRO GIMENEZ

  • G.R No. L-17951 February 28, 1963 - CONRADO C. FULE, ET AL. v. EMILIA E. DE LEGARE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18062 February 28, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ACOJE MINING COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18148 February 28, 1963 - DEOGRACIAS BERNARDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18364 February 28, 1963 - PHIL. AM. CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY WORKERS UNIONN v. PHIL. AM. CIGAR & CIGARETTE MFG CO.

  • G.R. No. L-18399 February 28, 1963 - MARCOS M. CALO v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

  • G.R. No. L-18471 February 28, 1963 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION v. JOSE CALIXTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18479 February 28, 1963 - MINDORO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. JOSE T. TORCUATOR

  • G.R. No. L-18603 February 28, 1963 - CANDIDA PIANO v. GENEROSA CAYANONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 18637 February 28, 1963 - CEFERINO NOROMOR v. MUNICIPALITY OF ORAS, SAMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18638 February 28, 1963 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SANTOS DONASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18646 February 28, 1963 - JULIA A. DE GUIA, ET AL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18697 February 28, 1963 - EMPLOYEES & LABORERS COOP. ASSO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL UNION OF RESTAURANT WORKERS

  • G.R. No. L-19129 February 28, 1963 - CITY OF CABANATUAN ET AL. v. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19136 February 28, 1963 - KAMUNING THEATER, INC. v. QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19187 February 28, 1963 - STERLING PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL. v. LORETA C. SOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19248 February 28, 1963 - ILUMINADO HANOPOL v. PERFECTO PILAPIL

  • G.R. No. L-19249 February 28, 1963 - CRISPINA GUANZON, ET AL. v. FERNANDO MAPA

  • G.R. No. L-19828 February 28, 1963 - GUSTAVO A. SUAREZ v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20147 February 28, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO AGUILAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20768 February 28, 1963 - ELISEO B. LEMI v. BRIGIDO VALENCIA, ET AL.