Cabales Vs CA

9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 531
VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 691

Cabales vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 162421. August 31, 2007.
NELSON CABALES and RITO CABALES, petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, JESUS FELIANO and
ANUNCIANO FELIANO, respondents.
Succession; Co-Ownership; If a widow or widower and

legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse
has in the succession the same share as that of each of the
children.—When Rufino Cabales died intestate, his wife
Saturnina and his six (6) children, Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco,
Leonora, Alberto and petitioner Rito, survived and succeeded him.
Article 996 of the New Civil Code provides that “[i]f a widow or
widower and legitimate children or descendants are left, the
surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of
each of the children.” Verily, the seven (7) heirs inherited equally
on subject property. Petitioner Rito and Alberto, petitioner
Nelson’s father, inherited in their own rights and with equal
shares as the others. But before partition of subject land was
effected, Alberto died. By operation of law, his rights and
obligations to one-seventh of subject land were transferred to his
legal heirs—his wife and his son petitioner Nelson.
Same; Same; A co-owner who redeems the property in its

entirety does not make him the owner of all of it—the property
remains in a condition of co-ownership as the redemption does not
provide for a mode of terminating a co-ownership.—In Paulmitan
v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 867 (1992), we held that a co-
owner who redeemed the property in its entirety did not make her
the owner of all of it. The property remained in a condition of co-
ownership as the redemption did not provide for a mode of
terminating a coownership. But the one who redeemed had the
right to be reimbursed for the redemption price and until
reimbursed, holds a lien upon the subject property for the amount
due. Necessarily, when Saturnina redeemed for Alberto’s heirs
who had then acquired his pro indiviso share in subject property,
it did not vest in her ownership over the pro indiviso share she
redeemed. But she has the right to be reimbursed for the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016619322fe1a2a6862d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
redemption price and held a lien upon the property for the
amount due until reimbursement. The result is that
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
692
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the heirs of Alberto, i.e., his wife and his son petitioner Nelson,
retained ownership over their pro indiviso share.
Same; Same; Guardianships; The legal guardian only has the

plenary power of administration of the minor’s property—it does
not include the power of alienation which needs judicial authority,
and the resulting sale is unenforceable; Subsequent receipt by the
ward when already of age of the proceeds of the sale effectively
ratifies the sale.—The legal guardian only has the plenary power
of administration of the minor’s property. It does not include the
power of alienation which needs judicial autho rity. Thus, when
Saturnina, as legal guardian of petititoner Rito, sold the latter’s
pro indiviso share in subject land, she did not have the legal
authority to do so. Article 1403 of the New Civil Code provides,
thus: Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless
they are ratified: (1) Those entered into the name of another
person by one who has been given no authority or legal
representation, or who has acted beyond his powers; x x x x
Accordingly, the contract of sale as to the pro indiviso share of
petitioner Rito was unenforceable. However, when he
acknowledged receipt of the proceeds of the sale on July 24, 1986,
petitioner Rito effectively ratified it. This act of ratification
rendered the sale valid and binding as to him.
Same; Same; Redemption; Legal redemption may only be

exercised by the co-owner or co-owners who did not part with his or
their pro indiviso share in the property held in common.—Legal
redemption may only be exercised by the co-owner or co-owners
who did not part with his or their pro indiviso share in the
property held in common. As demonstrated, the sale as to the
undivided share of petitioner Rito became valid and binding upon
his ratification on July 24, 1986. As a result, he lost his right to

redeem subject property.
Same; Same; Same; Co-owners entitled to redeem must do so

within thirty days from notice in writing of the sale by their
coowners vendors.—The sale as to the undivided share of
petitioner Nelson and his mother was not valid such that they
were not divested of their ownership thereto. Necessarily, they
may redeem the subject property from respondents-spouses. But
they must do so within thirty days from notice in writing of the
sale by their coowners vendors.
693
VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 693
Same; Same; Same; In the absence of proof of written notice of

sale in the instant case, the 30-day redemption commenced when
the one seeking redemption sought the barangay conciliation
process to redeem his property—to require strict proof of written
notice of the sale would be to countenance an obvious false claim of
lack of knowledge thereof, thus commending the letter of the law
over its purpose, i.e., the notification of redemptioners.—In the
instant case, the right of redemption was invoked not days but
years after the sale was made in 1978. We are not unmindful of
the fact that petitioner Nelson was a minor when the sale was
perfected. Nevertheless, the records show that in 1988, petitioner
Nelson, then of majority age, was informed of the sale of subject
property. Moreover, it was noted by the appellate court that
petitioner Nelson was likewise informed thereof in 1993 and he
signified his intention to redeem subject property during a
barangay conciliation process. But he only filed the complaint for
legal redemption and damages on January 12, 1995, certainly
more than thirty days from learning about the sale. In the face of
the established facts, petitioner Nelson cannot feign ignorance of
the sale of subject property in 1978. To require strict proof of
written notice of the sale would be to countenance an obvious
false claim of lack of knowledge thereof, thus commending the
letter of the law over its purpose, i.e., the notification of
redemptioners. The Court is satisfied that there was sufficient
notice of the sale to petitioner Nelson. The thirty-day redemption
period commenced in 1993, after petitioner Nelson sought the
barangay conciliation process to redeem his property. By January
12, 1995, when petitioner Nelson filed a complaint for legal
redemption and damages, it is clear that the thirty-day period had

already expired.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Godofredo L. Cualteros for petitioners.
Atoc Law Office for private respondents.
694

PUNO, C.J.:
This is a petition for review

1
on certiorari seeking the
reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
October 27, 2003, in CA-G.R. CV No. 68319 entitled
“Nelson Cabales and Rito Cabales v. Jesus Feliano and
Anunciacion
2
Feliano,” which affirmed with modification the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Maasin, Southern
Leyte, Branch 25, dated August 11, 2000, in Civil Case No.
R-2878. The resolution of the Court of Appeals dated
February 23, 2004, which denied petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration, is likewise herein assailed.
The facts as found by the trial court and the appellate
court are well established.
Rufino Cabales died on July 4, 1966 and left a 5,714-
squatre meter parcel of land located in Brgy. Rizal, Sogod,
Southern Leyte, covered by Tax Declaration No. 17270 to
his surviving wife Saturnina and children Bonifacio,
Albino, Francisco, Leonora, Alberto and petitioner Rito.
On July 26, 1971, brothers and co-owners Bonifacio,
Albino and Alberto sold the subject property to Dr.
Cayetano Corrompido for P2,000.00, with right to
repurchase within eight (8) years. The three (3) siblings
divided the proceeds of the sale among themselves, each
getting a share of P666.66.
The following month or on August 18, 1971, Alberto
secured a note (“vale”) from Dr. Corrompido in the amount
of P300.00.
In 1972, Alberto died leaving his wife and son, petitioner
Nelson.
On December 18, 1975, within the eight-year
redemption period, Bonifacio and Albino tendered their
payment of
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in

by Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Arsenio J. Magpale.
2 Penned by Judge Romeo M. Gomez.
695
VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 695

P666.66 each to Dr. Corrompido. But Dr. Corrompido only

released the document of sale with pacto de retro after
Saturnina paid for the share of her deceased son, Alberto,
including his “vale” of P300.00.
On even date, Saturnina and her four (4) children
Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco and Leonora sold the subject
parcel of land to respondents-spouses Jesus and
Anunciacion Feliano for P8,000.00. The Deed of Sale
provided in its last paragraph, thus:
“It is hereby declared and understood that the amount of TWO

THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX PESOS (P2,686.00)
corresponding and belonging to the Heirs of Alberto Cabales and
to Rito Cabales who are still minors upon the execution of the
instrument are held in trust by the VENDEE and to be paid and
delivered only to them upon reaching the age of 21.”
On December 17, 1985, the Register of Deeds of Southern

Leyte issued Original Certificate of Title No. 17035 over
the purchased land in the names of respondents-spouses.
On December 30, 1985, Saturnina and her four (4)
children executed an affidavit to the effect that petitioner
Nelson would only receive the amount of P176.34 from
respondentsspouses when he reaches the age of 21
considering that Saturnina paid Dr. Corrompido P966.66
for the obligation of petitioner Nelson’s late father Alberto,
i.e. P666.66 for his share in the redemption of the sale with
pacto de retro as well as his “vale” of P300.00.
On July 24, 1986, 24-year old petitioner Rito Cabales
acknowledged receipt of the sum of P1,143.00 from
respondent Jesus Feliano, representing the former’s share
in the proceeds of the sale of the subject property.
In 1988, Saturnina died. Petitioner Nelson, then
residing in Manila, went back to his father’s hometown in
Southern Leyte. That same year, he learned from his uncle,
petitioner Rito, of the sale of subject property. In 1993, he
signified his
696

intention to redeem the subject land during a barangay

conciliation process that he initiated.
On January 12, 1995, contending that they could not
have sold their respective shares in subject property when
they were minors, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial
Court of Maasin, Southern Leyte, a complaint for
redemption of the subject land plus damages.
In their answer, respondents-spouses maintained that
petitioners were estopped from claiming any right over
subject property considering that (1) petitioner Rito had
already received the amount corresponding to his share of
the proceeds of the sale of subject property, and (2) that
petitioner Nelson failed to consign to the court the total
amount of the redemption price necessary for legal
redemption. They prayed for the dismissal of the case on
the grounds of laches and prescription.
No amicable settlement was reached at pre-trial. Trial
ensued and on August 11, 2000, the trial court ruled
against petitioners. It held that (1) Alberto or, by his death,
any of his heirs including petitioner Nelson lost their right
to subject land when not one of them repurchased it from
Dr. Corrompido; (2) Saturnina was effectively subrogated
to the rights and interests of Alberto when she paid for
Alberto’s share as well as his obligation to Dr. Corrompido;
and (3) petitioner Rito had no more right to redeem his
share to subject property as the sale by Saturnina, his legal
guardian pursuant to Section 7, Rule 93 of the Rules of
Court, was perfectly valid; and it was shown that he
received his share of the proceeds of the sale on July 24,
1986, when he was 24 years old.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision of
the trial court. It held that the sale by Saturnina of
petitioner Rito’s undivided share to the property was
unenforceable for lack of authority or legal representation
but that the contract was effectively ratified by petitioner
Rito’s receipt of the proceeds on July 24, 1986. The
appellate court also ruled that petitioner Nelson is co-
owner to the extent of one-seventh
697
VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 697
(1/7) of subject property as Saturnina was not subrogated

to Alberto’s rights when she repurchased his share to the
property. It further directed petitioner Nelson to pay the
estate of the late Saturnina Cabales the amount of
P966.66, representing the amount which the latter paid for
the obligation of petitioner Nelson’s late father Alberto.
Finally, however, it denied petitioner Nelson’s claim for
redemption for his failure to tender or consign in court the
redemption money within the period prescribed by law.
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners
contend that the Court of Appeals erred in (1) recognizing
petitioner Nelson Cabales as co-owner of subject land but
denied him the right of legal redemption, and (2) not
recognizing petitioner Rito Cabales as co-owner of subject
land with similar right of legal redemption.
First, we shall delineate the rights of petitioners to
subject land.
When Rufino Cabales died intestate, his wife Saturnina
and his six (6) children, Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco,
Leonora, Alberto and petitioner Rito, survived and
succeeded him. Article 996 of the New Civil Code provides
that “[i]f a widow or widower and legitimate children or
descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the
succession the same share as that of each of the children.”
Verily, the seven (7) heirs inherited equally on subject
property. Petitioner Rito and Alberto, petitioner Nelson’s
father, inherited in their own rights and with equal shares
as the others.
But before partition of subject land was effected, Alberto
died. By operation of law, his rights and obligations to
oneseventh of subject land were transferred to his legal
heirs—his wife and his son petitioner Nelson.
We shall now discuss the effects of the two (2) sales of
subject land to the rights of the parties.
The first sale with pacto de retro to Dr. Corrompido by
the brothers and co-owners Bonifacio, Albino and Alberto
was valid but only as to their pro indiviso shares to the
land.
698

When Alberto died prior to repurchasing his share, his

rights and obligations were transferred to and assumed by
his heirs, namely his wife and his son, petitioner Nelson.
But the records show that it was Saturnina, Albertos
mother, and not his heirs, who repurchased for him. As
correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, Saturnina was not
subrogated to Alberto’s or his heirs’ rights to the property
when she repurchased the share. 3
In Paulmitan v. Court of Appeals, we held that a co-
owner who redeemed the property in its entirety did not
make her the owner of all of it. The property remained in a
condition of co-ownership as the redemption 4
did not provide
for a mode of terminating a co-ownership. But the one who
redeemed had the right to be reimbursed for the
redemption price and until reimbursed, holds 5
a lien upon
the subject property for the amount due. Necessarily,
when Saturnina redeemed for Alberto’s heirs who had then
acquired his pro indiviso share in subject property, it did
not vest in her ownership over the pro indiviso share she
redeemed. But she has the right to be reimbursed for the
redemption price and held a lien upon the property for the
amount due until reimbursement. The result is that the
heirs of Alberto, i.e., his wife and his son petitioner Nelson,
retained ownership over their pro indiviso share.
Upon redemption from Dr. Corrompido, the subject
property was resold to respondents-spouses by the co-
owners. Petitioners Rito and Nelson were then minors and
as indicated in the Deed of Sale, their shares in the
proceeds were held in trust by respondents-spouses to be
paid and delivered to them upon reaching the age of
majority.
_______________
3 G.R. No. 61584, November 25, 1992, 215 SCRA 867, citing Adille v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44546, January 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 455.
4 Id.
5 Id.
699
VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 699

As to petitioner Rito, the contract of sale was unenforceable

as correctly held by the Court
6
of Appeals. Articles 320 and
326 of the New Civil Code state that:
“Art. 320. The father, or in his absence the mother, is the legal
administrator of the property pertaining to the child under
parental authority. If the property is worth more than two

thousand pesos, the father or mother shall give a bond subject to
the approval of the Court of First Instance.
Art. 326. When the property of the child is worth more than
two thousand pesos, the father or mother shall be considered a
guardian of the child’s property, subject to the duties and
obligations of guardians under the Rules of Court.”
In other words, the father, or, in his absence, the mother, is

considered legal administrator of the property pertaining to
the child under his or her parental authority without need
of giving a bond in case the amount of the property
7
of the
child does not exceed two thousand pesos. Corollary to
this, Rule 93, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court of
1964, applicable to this case, automatically designates the
parent as legal guardian of the child without need of any
judicial appointment in case8
the latter’s property does not
exceed two thousand pesos, thus:
“Sec. 7. Parents as guardians.—When the property of the child

under parental authority is worth two thousand pesos or less, the
father or the mother, without the 9necessity of court appointment,
shall be his legal guardian x x x x”
_______________
6 Law applicable to the case. Executive Order No. 209 other wise known
as the Family Code of the Philippines, which expressly repealed these
provisions, took effect on August 4, 1988.
7 See Badillo v. Ferrer, No. L-51369, July 29, 1987, 152 SCRA 407.
8 Id.
9 The New Rules on Guardianship of Minors, adapted in the May 1,
2003 Resolution o the Court in A.M. No. 03-02-05, provide, inter alia:
700

Saturnina was clearly petitioner Rito’s legal guardian

without necessity of court appointment considering that
the amount of his property or one-seventh of subject
property was P1,143.00, which10 is less than two thousand
pesos. However, Rule 96, Sec. 1 provides that:
“Section 1. To what guardianship shall extend.—A guardian

appointed shall have the care and custody of the person of his
ward, and the management of his estate, or the management of
the estate only, as the case may be. The guardian of the estate of
a nonresident shall have the management of all the estate of the

ward within the Philippines, and no court other than that in
which such guardian was appointed shall have jurisdiction over
the guardianship.”
Indeed, the legal guardian only has the plenary power of

administration of the minor’s property. It does not include 11
the power of alienation which needs judicial authority.
Thus, when Saturnina, as legal guardian of petititoner
Rito, sold the latter’s pro indiviso share in subject land, she
did not have the legal authority to do so.
Article 1403 of the New Civil Code provides, thus:
“Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they

are ratified:
(1) Those entered into the name of another person by one who
has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has
acted beyond his powers;
_______________
Section 1. Applicability of the Rule.—This Rule shall apply to petitioners for

guardianship over the person or property, or both, of a minor.
The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the
person and property of their unemancipated common child without the necessity of
a court appointment. In such case, this Rule shall be suppletory to the provisions
of the Family Code on guardianship.
10 Revised Rules of Court of 1964.

11 Revised Rules of Court of 194, Rule 95.
701
VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 701

x x x x”
Accordingly, the contract of sale as to the pro indiviso

share of petitioner Rito was unenforceable. However, when
he acknowledged receipt of the proceeds of the sale on July
24, 1986, petitioner Rito effectively ratified it. This act of
ratification rendered the sale valid and binding as to him.
With respect to petitioner Nelson, on the other hand, the
contract of sale was void. He was a minor at the time of the
sale. Saturnina or any and all the other co-owners were not
his legal guardians with judicial authority to alienate or
encumber his property. It was his mother who was his legal
guardian and, if duly authorized by the courts, could
validly sell his undivided share to the property. She did

not. Necessarily, when Saturnina and the others sold the
subject property in its entirety to respondents-spouses,
they only sold and transferred title to their pro indiviso
shares and not that part which pertained to petitioner
Nelson and his mother. Consequently, petitioner Nelson
and his mother retained12 ownership over their undivided
share of subject property.
But may petitioners redeem the subject land from
respondents-spouses? Articles 1088 and 1623 of the New
Civil Code are pertinent:
“Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a
stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be
subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for
the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one
month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by
the vendor.
Art. 1623. The right of legal preemption shall not be exercised
except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the
prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The
deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property,
unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has
given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.
_______________
12 Nothing on records indicates that petitioner Nelson’s mother

predeceased him.
702

The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining

owners.”
Clearly, legal redemption may only be exercised by the co-

owner or co-owners who did not part with his or their pro
indiviso share in the property held in common. As
demonstrated, the sale as to the undivided share of
petitioner Rito became valid and binding upon his
ratification on July 24, 1986. As a result, he lost his right to
redeem subject property.
However, as likewise established, the sale as to the
undivided share of petitioner Nelson and his mother was
not valid such that they were not divested of their
ownership thereto. Necessarily, they may redeem the

subject property from respondents-spouses. But they must
do so within thirty days from notice in writing of the sale
by their co-owners vendors. In reckoning this 13
period, we
held in Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, thus:
“x x x we test a law by its results; and likewise, we may add, by its

purposes. It is a cardinal rule that, in seeking the meaning of the
law, the first concern of the judge should be to discover in its
provisions the intent of the lawmaker. Unquestionably, the law
should never be interpreted in such a way as to cause injustice as
this is never within the legislative intent. An indispensable part
of that intent, in fact, for we presume the good motives of the
legislature, is to render justice.
Thus, we interpret and apply the law not independently of but
in consonance with justice. Law and justice are inseparable, and
we must keep them so. x x x x
x x x x While we may not read into the law a purpose that is
not there, we nevertheless have the right to read out of it the
reason for its enactment. In doing so, we defer not to “the letter
that killeth” but to “the spirit that vivifieth,” to give effect to the
lawmaker’s will.
_______________
13 No. L-72873, May 28, 1987, 150 SCRA 259.
703
VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 703

In requiring
14
written notice, Article 1088 (and Article 1623 for that
matter) seeks to ensure that the redemptioner is properly
notified of the sale and to indicate the date of such notice as the
starting time of the 30-day period of redemption. Considering the
shortness of the period, it is really necessary, as a general rule, to
pinpoint the precise date it is supposed to begin, to obviate the
problem of alleged delays, sometimes consisting of only a day or
two.”
In the instant case, the right of redemption was invoked

not days but years after the sale was made in 1978. We are
not unmindful of the fact that petitioner Nelson was a
minor when the sale was perfected. Nevertheless, the
records show that in 1988, petitioner Nelson, then of
majority age, was informed of the sale of subject property.
Moreover, it was noted by the appellate court that
petitioner Nelson was likewise informed thereof in 1993

and he signified his intention to redeem subject property
during a barangay conciliation process. But he only filed
the complaint for legal redemption and damages on
January 12, 1995, certainly more than thirty days from
learning about the sale.
In the face of the established facts, petitioner Nelson
cannot feign ignorance of the sale of subject property in
1978. To require strict proof of written notice of the sale
would be to countenance an obvious false claim of lack of
knowledge thereof, thus commending the letter of the law
over its purpose, i.e., the notification of redemptioners.
The Court is satisfied that there was sufficient notice of
the sale to petitioner Nelson. The thirty-day redemption
period commenced in 1993, after petitioner Nelson sought
the barangay conciliation process to redeem his property.
By January 12, 1995, when petitioner Nelson filed a
complaint for legal redemption and damages, it is clear
that the thirty-day period had already expired.
_______________
14 Included for its application in the case at bar.
704

As in Alonzo, the Court, after due consideration of the facts

of the instant case,15hereby interprets the law in a way that
will render justice.
Petitioner Nelson, as correctly held by the Court of
Appeals, can no longer redeem subject property. But he and
his mother remains co-owners thereof with respondents-
spouses. Accordingly, title to subject property must include
them.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is denied. The
assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals of
October 27, 2003 and the February 23, 2004 are
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The Register of
Deeds of Southern Leyte is ORDERED to cancel Original
Certificate of Title No. 17035 and to issue in lieu thereof a
new certificate of title in the name of respondents-spouses
Jesus and Anunciacion Feliano for the 6/7 portion, and
petitioner Nelson Cabales and his mother for the
remaining 1/7 portion, pro indiviso.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Azcuna and Garcia,

JJ., concur.
Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution

affirmed with modification.
Notes.—A third person, within the meaning of Article

1620 of the Civil Code (on the right of legal redemption of a
co-owner) is anyone who is not a co-owner. (Pilapil vs.
Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 566 [1995])
The exercise of the right to redeem presupposes the
existence of a co-ownership at the time the conveyance is
made by a co-owner and when it is demanded by the other
co-owner or co-owners—as legal redemption is intended to
minimize co-ownership, once the property is subdivided
and distributed among the co-owners, the community
ceases to exist and
_______________
15 See note 3.
705
VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 705

LICOMCEN, Incorporated vs. Foundation Specialists, Inc.
there is no more reason to sustain any right of legal

redemption. (Vda. De Ape vs. Court of Appeals, 456 SCRA
193 [2005])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cabales Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabales Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabales Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/27/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 531

VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 691

NELSON CABALES and RITO CABALES, petitioners, vs.

Succession; Co-Ownership; If a widow or widower and

Same; Same; A co-owner who redeems the property in its

692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabales vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Guardianships; The legal guardian only has the

Same; Same; Redemption; Legal redemption may only be

his ratification on July 24, 1986. As a result, he lost his right to

Same; Same; Same; Co-owners entitled to redeem must do so

VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 693

Cabales vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Same; In the absence of proof of written notice of

redemption and damages, it is clear that the thirty-day period had

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

This is a petition for review

1 Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in

VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 695

P666.66 each to Dr. Corrompido. But Dr. Corrompido only

“It is hereby declared and understood that the amount of TWO

On December 17, 1985, the Register of Deeds of Southern

696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

intention to redeem the subject land during a barangay

VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 697

Cabales vs. Court of Appeals

(1/7) of subject property as Saturnina was not subrogated

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

When Alberto died prior to repurchasing his share, his

VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 699

As to petitioner Rito, the contract of sale was unenforceable

parental authority. If the property is worth more than two

In other words, the father, or, in his absence, the mother, is

“Sec. 7. Parents as guardians.—When the property of the child

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saturnina was clearly petitioner Rito’s legal guardian

“Section 1. To what guardianship shall extend.—A guardian

a nonresident shall have the management of all the estate of the

Indeed, the legal guardian only has the plenary power of

“Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they

Section 1. Applicability of the Rule.—This Rule shall apply to petitioners for

10 Revised Rules of Court of 1964.

VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 701

Accordingly, the contract of sale as to the pro indiviso

validly sell his undivided share to the property. She did

12 Nothing on records indicates that petitioner Nelson’s mother

702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining

Clearly, legal redemption may only be exercised by the co-

ownership thereto. Necessarily, they may redeem the

“x x x we test a law by its results; and likewise, we may add, by its

13 No. L-72873, May 28, 1987, 150 SCRA 259.

VOL. 531, AUGUST 31, 2007 703

In the instant case, the right of redemption was invoked

petitioner Nelson was likewise informed thereof in 1993

14 Included for its application in the case at bar.

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

As in Alonzo, the Court, after due consideration of the facts