G.R. No.

161916 January 20, 2006

ARNELITO ADLAWAN, Petitioner,
vs.
EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN and NARCISA M.
ADLAWAN, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N
YNARESSANTIAGO, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review is the September 2, 2!!
De"ision
#
of the Co$rt of Appeals in CA%&.R. SP No. '()2#
whi"h set aside the September #, 2!!2 De"ision
2
of the
Re*ional +rial Co$rt ,R+C- of Ceb$ Cit., /ran"h ', in Civil
Case No. CE/%2'0!1, and reinstated the 2ebr$ar. #2, 2!!2
3$d*ment

of the 4$ni"ipal +rial Co$rt ,4+C- of 4in*lanilla,

4etro Ceb$, in Civil Case No. )2, dismissin* petitioner
Arnelito Adlawan5s $nlawf$l detainer s$it a*ainst respondents
Emeterio and Nar"isa Adlawan. 6i7ewise 8$estioned is the
3an$ar. 0, 2!!( Resol$tion
(
of the Co$rt of Appeals whi"h
denied petitioner5s motion for re"onsideration.
+he instant e9e"tment s$it stemmed from the parties5 disp$te
over 6ot '221 and the ho$se b$ilt thereon, "overed b. +ransfer
Certifi"ate of +itle No. 00(2,
:
re*istered in the name of the late
Dominador Adlawan and lo"ated at /arrio 6ipata, 4$ni"ipalit.
of 4in*lanilla, Ceb$. In his "omplaint, petitioner "laimed that
he is an a"7nowled*ed ille*itimate "hild
1
of Dominador who
died on 4a. 20, #)0' witho$t an. other iss$e. Claimin* to be
the sole heir of Dominador, he e;e"$ted an affidavit
ad9$di"atin* to himself 6ot '221 and the ho$se b$ilt
thereon.
'
O$t of respe"t and *enerosit. to respondents who
are the siblin*s of his father, he *ranted their plea to o""$p.
the s$b9e"t propert. provided the. wo$ld va"ate the same
sho$ld his need for the propert. arise. Sometime in 3an$ar.
#))), he verball. re8$ested respondents to va"ate the ho$se
and lot, b$t the. ref$sed and filed instead an a"tion for 8$ietin*
of title
0
with the R+C. 2inall., $pon respondents5 ref$sal to
heed the last demand letter to va"ate dated A$*$st 2, 2!!!,
petitioner filed the instant "ase on A$*$st ), 2!!!.
)
On the other hand, respondents Nar"isa and Emeterio, '! and
:) .ears of a*e, respe"tivel.,
#!
denied that the. be**ed
petitioner to allow them to sta. on the 8$estioned propert. and
stressed that the. have been o""$p.in* 6ot '221 and the
ho$se standin* thereon sin"e birth. +he. alle*ed that 6ot '221
was ori*inall. re*istered in the name of their de"eased father,
Ramon Adlawan
##
and the an"estral ho$se standin* thereon
was owned b. Ramon and their mother, Oli*ia 4a<a"ap
Adlawan. +he spo$ses had nine
#2
"hildren in"l$din* the late
Dominador and herein s$rvivin* respondents Emeterio and
Nar"isa. D$rin* the lifetime of their parents and de"eased
siblin*s, all of them lived on the said propert.. Dominador and
his wife, &ra"iana Ramas Adlawan, who died witho$t iss$e,
also o""$pied the same.
#
Petitioner, on the other hand, is a
stran*er who never had possession of 6ot '221.
Sometime in #)1#, spo$ses Ramon and Oli*ia needed mone.
to finan"e the renovation of their ho$se. Sin"e the. were not
8$alified to obtain a loan, the. transferred ownership of 6ot
'221 in the name of their son Dominador who was the onl.
one in the famil. who had a "olle*e ed$"ation. /. virt$e of a
3an$ar. #, #)12 sim$lated deed of sale,
#(
a title was iss$ed to
Dominador whi"h enabled him to se"$re a loan with 6ot '221
as "ollateral. Notwithstandin* the e;e"$tion of the sim$lated
deed, Dominador, then sin*le, never disp$ted his parents5
ownership of the lot. =e and his wife, &ra"iana, did not dist$rb
respondents5 possession of the propert. $ntil the. died on 4a.
20, #)0' and 4a. 1, #))', respe"tivel..
Respondents also "ontended that Dominador5s si*nat$re at the
ba"7 of petitioner5s birth "ertifi"ate was for*ed, hen"e, the
latter is not an heir of Dominador and has no ri*ht to "laim
ownership of 6ot '221.
#:
+he. ar*$ed that even if petitioner is
indeed Dominador5s a"7nowled*ed ille*itimate son, his ri*ht to
s$""eed is do$btf$l be"a$se Dominador was s$rvived b. his
wife, &ra"iana.
#1
On 2ebr$ar. #2, 2!!2, the 4+C dismissed the "omplaint
holdin* that the establishment of petitioner5s filiation and the
settlement of the estate of Dominador are "onditions pre"edent
to the a""r$al of petitioner5s a"tion for e9e"tment. It added that
sin"e Dominador was s$rvived b. his wife, &ra"iana, who died
#! .ears thereafter, her le*al heirs are also entitled to their
share in 6ot '221. +he dispositive portion thereof, reads>
In ?iew of the fore*oin*, for fail$re to prove b. preponderan"e
of eviden"e, the plaintiff5s "a$se of a"tion, the above%entitled
"ase is hereb. Ordered DIS4ISSED.
SO ORDERED.
#'
On appeal b. petitioner, the R+C reversed the de"ision of the
4+C holdin* that the title of Dominador over 6ot '221 "annot
be "ollaterall. atta"7ed. It th$s ordered respondents to t$rn
over possession of the "ontroverted lot to petitioner and to pa.
"ompensation for the $se and o""$pation of the premises. +he
de"retal portion thereof, provides>
@herefore, the 3$d*ment, dated 2ebr$ar. #2, 2!!2, of the
4$ni"ipal +rial Co$rt of 4in*lanilla, Ceb$, in Civil Case No.
)2, is reversed. Defendants%appellees are dire"ted to restore
to plaintiff%appellant possession of 6ot '221 and the ho$se
thereon, and to pa. plaintiff%appellant, be*innin* in A$*$st
2!!!, "ompensation for their $se and o""$pation of the
propert. in the amo$nt of P:!!.!! a month.
So ordered.
#0
4eanwhile, the R+C *ranted petitioner5s motion for e;e"$tion
pendin* appeal
#)
whi"h was opposed b. the alle*ed nephew
and nie"es of &ra"iana in their motion for leave to intervene
and to file an answer in intervention.
2!
+he. "ontended that as
heirs of &ra"iana, the. have a share in 6ot '221 and that
intervention is ne"essar. to prote"t their ri*ht over the propert..
In addition, the. de"lared that as "o%owners of the propert.,
the. are allowin* respondents to sta. in 6ot '221 $ntil a formal
partition of the propert. is made.
+he R+C denied the motion for leave to intervene.
2#
It,
however, re"alled the order *rantin* the e;e"$tion pendin*
appeal havin* lost 9$risdi"tion over the "ase in view of the
petition filed b. respondents with the Co$rt of Appeals.
22
On September 2, 2!!, the Co$rt of Appeals set aside the
de"ision of the R+C and reinstated the 9$d*ment of the 4+C. It
ratio"inated that petitioner and the heirs of &ra"iana are "o%
owners of 6ot '221. As s$"h, petitioner "annot e9e"t
respondents from the propert. via an $nlawf$l detainer s$it
filed in his own name and as the sole owner of the propert..
+h$s A
@=EE2ORE, premises "onsidered, the appealed De"ision
dated September #, 2!!2 of the Re*ional +rial Co$rt of Ceb$
Cit., /ran"h ', in Civil Case No. CE/%2'0!1 is RE?ERSED
and SE+ ASIDE, and the 3$d*ment dated 2ebr$ar. #2, 2!!2
of the 4$ni"ipal +rial Co$rt of 4in*lanilla, 4etro Ceb$, in Civil
Case No. )2 is REINS+A+ED. Costs a*ainst the respondent.
SO ORDERED.
2
Petitioner5s motion for re"onsideration was denied. =en"e, the
instant petition.
+he de"isive iss$e to be resolved is whether or not petitioner
"an validl. maintain the instant "ase for e9e"tment.
Petitioner averred that he is an a"7nowled*ed ille*itimate son
and the sole heir of Dominador. =e in fa"t e;e"$ted an affidavit
ad9$di"atin* to himself the "ontroverted propert.. In r$lin* for
the petitioner, the R+C held that the 8$estioned 3an$ar. #,
#)12 deed of sale validl. transferred title to Dominador and
that petitioner is his a"7nowled*ed ille*itimate son who
inherited ownership of the 8$estioned lot. +he Co$rt notes,
however, that the R+C lost si*ht of the fa"t that the theor. of
s$""ession invo7ed b. petitioner wo$ld end $p provin* that he
is not the sole owner of 6ot '221. +his is so be"a$se
Dominador was s$rvived not onl. b. petitioner b$t also b. his
le*al wife, &ra"iana, who died #! .ears after the demise of
Dominador on 4a. 20, #)0'.
2(
/. intestate s$""ession,
&ra"iana and petitioner be"ame "o%owners of 6ot '221.
2:
+he
death of &ra"iana on 4a. 1, #))', did not ma7e petitioner the
absol$te owner of 6ot '221 be"a$se the share of &ra"iana
passed to her relatives b. "onsan*$init. and not to petitioner
with whom she had no blood relations. +he Co$rt of Appeals
th$s "orre"tl. held that petitioner has no a$thorit. to instit$te
the instant a"tion as the sole owner of 6ot '221.
Petitioner "ontends that even *rantin* that he has "o%owners
over 6ot '221, he "an on his own file the instant "ase p$rs$ant
to Arti"le (0' of the Civil Code whi"h provides>
AR+. (0'. An. one of the "o%owners ma. brin* an a"tion in
e9e"tment.
+his arti"le "overs all 7inds of a"tions for the re"over. of
possession. Arti"le (0' in"l$des for"ible entr. and $nlawf$l
detainer ,accion interdictal-, re"over. of possession ,accion
publiciana), and re"over. of ownership ,accion de
reivindicacion-.
21
A "o%owner ma. brin* s$"h an a"tion witho$t
the ne"essit. of 9oinin* all the other "o%owners as "o%plaintiffs
be"a$se the s$it is pres$med to have been filed to benefit his
"o%owners. It sho$ld be stressed, however, that where the s$it
is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who "laims to be the sole
owner and entitled to the possession of the liti*ated propert.,
the a"tion sho$ld be dismissed.
2'
+he renowned "ivilist, Professor Art$ro 4. +olentino, e;plained
A
A "o%owner ma. brin* s$"h an a"tion, witho$t the ne"essit. of
9oinin* all the other "o%owners as "o%plaintiffs, be"a$se the s$it
is deemed to be instit$ted for the benefit of all. I! "#$ a%"&on &'
!or "#$ ($n$!&" o! "#$ )*a&n"&!! a*on$, 'u%# "#a" #$ %*a&+'
)o''$''&on !or #&+'$*! and no" !or "#$ %oo,n$r'#&), "#$
a%"&on ,&** no" )ro')$r. ,Emphasis added-
20
In Baloloy v. Hular,
2)
respondent filed a "omplaint for 8$ietin*
of title "laimin* e;"l$sive ownership of the propert., b$t the
eviden"e showed that respondent has "o%owners over the
propert.. In dismissin* the "omplaint for want of respondent5s
a$thorit. to file the "ase, the Co$rt held that A
Bnder Arti"le (0' of the New Civil Code, an. of the "o%owners
ma. brin* an a"tion in e9e"tment. +his arti"le "overs all 7inds
of a"tions for the re"over. of possession, in"l$din* an accion
publiciana and a reinvidi"ator. a"tion. A "o%owner ma. brin*
s$"h an a"tion witho$t the ne"essit. of 9oinin* all the other "o%
owners as "o%plaintiffs be"a$se the s$it is deemed to be
instit$ted for the benefit of all. An. 9$d*ment of the "o$rt in
favor of the "o%owner will benefit the others b$t if s$"h
9$d*ment is adverse, the same "annot pre9$di"e the ri*hts of
the $nimpleaded "o%owners. If the a"tion is for the benefit of
the plaintiff alone who "laims to be the sole owner and entitled
to the possession thereof, the a"tion will not prosper $nless he
impleads the other "o%owners who are indispensable parties.
In this "ase, the respondent alone filed the "omplaint, "laimin*
sole ownership over the s$b9e"t propert. and pra.in* that he
be de"lared the sole owner thereof. +here is no proof that the
other "o%owners had waived their ri*hts over the s$b9e"t
propert. or "onve.ed the same to the respondent or s$"h "o%
owners were aware of the "ase in the trial "o$rt. +he trial "o$rt
rendered 9$d*ment de"larin* the respondent as the sole owner
of the propert. and entitled to its possession, to the pre9$di"e
of the latter5s siblin*s. Patentl. then, the de"ision of the trial
"o$rt is erroneo$s.
Bnder Se"tion ', R$le of the R$les of Co$rt, the respondent
was mandated to implead his siblin*s, bein* "o%owners of the
propert., as parties. +he respondent failed to "ompl. with the
r$le. It m$st, li7ewise, be stressed that the Rep$bli" of the
Philippines is also an indispensable part. as defendant
be"a$se the respondent so$*ht the n$llifi"ation of OC+ No. P%
#1:(! whi"h was iss$ed based on 2ree Patent No. 0(!#).
Bnless the State is impleaded as part.%defendant, an. de"ision
of the Co$rt wo$ld not be bindin* on it. It has been held that
the absen"e of an indispensable part. in a "ase renders
ineffe"tive all the pro"eedin*s s$bse8$ent to the filin* of the
"omplaint in"l$din* the 9$d*ment. +he absen"e of the
respondent5s siblin*s, as parties, rendered all pro"eedin*s
s$bse8$ent to the filin* thereof, in"l$din* the 9$d*ment of the
"o$rt, ineffe"tive for want of a$thorit. to a"t, not onl. as to the
absent parties b$t even as to those present.
!
In the instant "ase, it is not disp$ted that petitioner bro$*ht the
s$it for $nlawf$l detainer in his name alone and for his own
benefit to the e;"l$sion of the heirs of &ra"iana as he even
e;e"$ted an affidavit of self% ad9$di"ation over the disp$ted
propert.. It is "lear therefore that petitioner "annot validl.
maintain the instant a"tion "onsiderin* that he does not
re"o*niCe the "o%ownership that ne"essaril. flows from his
theor. of s$""ession to the propert. of his father, Dominador.
In the same vein, there is no merit in petitioner5s "laim that he
has the le*al personalit. to file the present $nlawf$l detainer
s$it be"a$se the e9e"tment of respondents wo$ld benefit not
onl. him b$t also his alle*ed "o%owners. =owever, petitioner
for*ets that he filed the instant "ase to a"8$ire possession of
the propert. and to re"over dama*es. If *ranted, he alone will
*ain possession of the lot and benefit from the pro"eeds of the
award of dama*es to the e;"l$sion of the heirs of &ra"iana.
=en"e, petitioner "annot s$""essf$ll. "apitaliCe on the alle*ed
benefit to his "o%owners. In"identall., it sho$ld be pointed o$t
that in defa$lt of the said heirs of &ra"iana, whom petitioner
labeled as Dfi"titio$s heirs,D the State will inherit her share
#
and
will th$s be petitioner5s "o%owner entitled to possession and
en9o.ment of the propert..
+he present "ontrovers. sho$ld be differentiated from the
"ases where the Co$rt $pheld the ri*ht of a "o%owner to file a
s$it p$rs$ant to Arti"le (0' of the Civil Code. In Resuena v.
Court of Appeals,
2
and Sering v. Plazo,

the "o%owners who

filed the e9e"tment "ase did not represent themselves as the
e;"l$sive owner of the propert.. InCelino v. Heirs of Alejo and
eresa Santiago,
(
the "omplaint for 8$ietin* of title was
bro$*ht in behalf of the "o%owners pre"isel. to re"over lots
owned in "ommon.
:
Similarl. in !encilao v. Ca"arenta,
1
the
amended "omplaint spe"ified that the plaintiff is one of the
heirs who "o%owns the "ontroverted properties.
In the fore*oin* "ases, the plaintiff never disp$ted the
e;isten"e of a "o%ownership nor "laimed to be the sole or
e;"l$sive owner of the liti*ated lot. A favorable de"ision therein
wo$ld of "o$rse in$re to the benefit not onl. of the plaintiff b$t
to his "o%owners as well. +he instant "ase, however, presents
an entirel. different ba"7drop as petitioner vi*oro$sl. asserted
absol$te and sole ownership of the 8$estioned lot. In his
"omplaint, petitioner made the followin* alle*ations, to wit>
. +he plaintiff was the onl. son ,ille*itimate- and 'o*$ #$&r of
the late DO4INADOR AD6A@AN who died intestate on 20
4a. #)0' witho$t an. other des"endant nor as"endant ; ; ;.
; ; ; ;
:. /ein* the onl. "hildEdes"endant and, therefore, 'o*$ #$&r of
the de"eased Dominador Adlawan, "#$ )*a&n"&!! ($%a+$ "#$
a('o*u"$ o,n$r, and a$tomati"all. too7 POSSESSION, of the
aforementioned ho$se and lot ; ; ;. ,Emphasis added-
'
Clearl., the said "ases find no appli"ation here be"a$se
petitioner5s a"tion operates as a "omplete rep$diation of the
e;isten"e of "o%ownership and not in representation or
re"o*nition thereof. Dismissal of the "omplaint is therefore
proper. As noted b. 2ormer S$preme Co$rt Asso"iate 3$sti"e
Ed*rado 6. Paras DFiGt is $nderstood, of "o$rse, that the a"tion
F$nder Arti"le (0' of the Civil CodeG is bein* instit$ted for all.
=en"e, if the "o%owner e;pressl. states that he is brin*in* the
"ase onl. for himself, the a"tion sho$ld not be allowed to
prosper.D
0
Indeed, respondents5 not less than fo$r de"ade a"t$al ph.si"al
possession of the 8$estioned an"estral ho$se and lot deserves
to be respe"ted espe"iall. so that petitioner failed to show that
he has the re8$isite personalit. and a$thorit. as "o%owner to
file the instant "ase. 3$sti"e di"tates that respondents who are
now in the twili*ht .ears of their life be *ranted possession of
their an"estral propert. where their parents and siblin*s lived
d$rin* their lifetime, and where the., will probabl. spend the
remainin* da.s of their life.
W-ERE.ORE, the petition is DENIED. +he September 2,
2!! De"ision of the Co$rt of Appeals in CA%&.R. SP No.
'()2# whi"h reinstated the 2ebr$ar. #2, 2!!2 3$d*ment of the
4$ni"ipal +rial Co$rt of 4in*lanilla, 4etro Ceb$, dismissin*
petitioner5s "omplaint in Civil Case No. )2, and its 3an$ar. 0,
2!!( Resol$tion, are A..IRMED.
F&.R. No. #(010. November #(, 2!!2.G
OSCAR C. .ERNANDE/, GIL C. .ERNANDE/ and
ARMANDO C. .ERNANDE/, petitioners, vs. S)ou'$'
CARLOS and NARCISA TAR0N, respondents.
#scar C. $ernandez for petitioners.
$ernando P. Cabrera for private respondents.
SYNO1SIS
A fishpond 7nown as 6ot No. 2))# and another fishpond
"overed b. +C+ #!)(( was previo$sl. "o%owned b. Antonio,
Santia*o, Demetria and An*el. In #)1', Antonio and Demetria
sold their shares in 6ot No. 2))# to herein respondent
spo$ses. 6ater, when Antonio, Santia*o, Demetria and An*el
e;e"$ted a Deed of E;tra9$di"ial Partition with e;"han*e of
shares, An*el and respondents be"ame "o%owners of 6ot No.
2))#. An*el, and later his heirs, remained in possession of the
entire fishpond. @hen respondents so$*ht partition of the
propert. and their share of the in"ome. An*el, and later his
heirs, ref$sed to partition 6ot No. 2))#.
+he Co$rt re"o*niCes the ri*ht of respondents as "o%owners of
6ot No. 2))#. +he Co$rt noted that the sale of shares to
respondents had lon* been "ons$mmated before petitioners
s$""eeded their prede"essor, An*el. +hat b. the time
petitioners entered into the "o%ownership, respondents were no
lon*er Dthird personsD b$t had alread. be"ome "o%owners of
the whole propert.. Petitioners alle*ed the absen"e of written
noti"e of sale to the "o%owners then, b$t s$"h does not render
the sale void. Noti"e here was *iven at the e;e"$tion of the
E;tra9$di"ial Partition with E;"han*e of Shares. An*el waived
his ri*ht to redeem b. his ina"tion. 2$rther, as petitioners
alle*ed e8$itable mort*a*e, sellers themselves do not. Neither
is there proof of *rossl. inade8$ate pri"in*. +he petition was
denied.
SYLLA20S
#.CI?I6 6A@H SPECIA6 CON+RAC+SH SA6ESH
EI+IN&BIS=4EN+ O2 SA6EH 6E&A6 REDE4P+ION /J CO%
O@NER IS 2OR S=ARE SO6D ON6J +O +=IRD PERSON.
K +r$e, the ri*ht to redeem is *ranted not onl. to the ori*inal
"o%owners of a propert., b$t also to all those who s$bse8$entl.
a"8$ire their respe"tive shares while the "omm$nit. s$bsists.
=owever, it m$st be stressed that this ri*ht of redemption is
available onl. when part of the "o%owned propert. is sold to a
third person. Otherwise p$t, the ri*ht to redeem referred to in
Arti"le #12! applies onl. when a portion is sold to a non%"o%
owner. In Basa v. Aguilar, this Co$rt has $ne8$ivo"all. r$led
that the ri*ht of redemption ma. be availed of b. a "o%owner,
onl. when the shares of the other owners are sold to a third
person. D6e*al redemption is in the nat$re of a privile*e
"reated b. law partl. for reasons of p$bli" poli". and partl. for
the benefit and "onvenien"e of the redemptioner, to afford him
a wa. o$t of what mi*ht be a disa*reeable or FanG in"onvenient
asso"iation into whi"h he has been thr$st. ,#! 4anresa, (th,
Ed., #'.- It is intended to minimiCe "o%ownership. +he law
*rants a "o%owner the e;er"ise of the said ri*ht of redemption
when the shares of the other owners are sold to a Lthird
person.LD +here is no le*al redemption, either in "ase of a mere
lease and if the p$r"haser is also a tenant. SaCIAE
2.ID.H ID.H ID.H ID.H ID.H @=ERE +=IRD PERSON /ECA4E
CO%O@NER. K In this "ase, it is 8$ite "lear that respondents
are petitionersL "o%owners. +he sale of the "ontested propert.
to Spo$ses +ar$n had lon* been "ons$mmated before
petitioners s$""eeded their prede"essor, An*el 2ernandeC. /.
the time petitioners entered into the "o%ownership, respondents
were no lon*er Dthird persons,D b$t had alread. be"ome "o%
owners of the whole propert.. A third person, within the
meanin* of Arti"le #12!, is an.one who is not a "o%owner.
.ID.H PROPER+JH CO%O@NERS=IPH SA6E O2 S=AREH
NO+ICE +O CO%O@NERSH E6BCIDA+ED. K E8$all.
$navailin* is petitionersL "ontention that the sale was void,
be"a$se the vendor had not sent an. noti"e in writin* to the
other "o%owners as re8$ired $nder Arti"le #12: of the Code.
Indeed, the Code merel. provides that a deed of sale shall not
be re"orded in the Re*istr. of Propert., $nless a""ompanied
b. an affidavit that a written noti"e has been *iven to all
possible redemptioners. =owever, it does not state that, b.
reason of s$"h la"7 of noti"e, the sale shall be"ome void.
3$rispr$den"e affirms the need for noti"e, b$t its form has
been the s$b9e"t of var.in* interpretations. Conejero v. Court
of Appeals held that a written noti"e was still re8$ired, even if
the redemptioner had a"t$al prior 7nowled*e of the sale.
=owever, in %istrito v. Court of Appeals, the Co$rt r$led that
written noti"e was not ne"essar., if the "o%owner was a"t$all.
aware of the sale. @hile the law re8$ires that the noti"e m$st
be in writin*, it does not pres"ribe an. parti"$lar form, so lon*
as the reasons for a written noti"e are satisfied otherwise.
+h$s, in a "ivil "ase for "olle"tion of a share in the rentals b.
an alle*ed b$.er of a "o%owned propert., the re"eipt of a
s$mmons b. a "o%owner has been held to "onstit$te a"t$al
7nowled*e of the sale. On that basis, the "o%owner ma.
e;er"ise the ri*ht of redemption within ! da.s from the finalit.
of the de"ision.
(.ID.H ID.H ID.H ID.H RI&=+ O2 REDE4P+ION A2+ER NO+ICEH
@AI?ER +=EREO2. K Appl.in* the presentl. prevailin*
prin"iples, petitionersL prede"essor K An*el 2ernandeC K is
deemed to have been *iven noti"e of the sale to respondents
b. the e;e"$tion and si*nin* of the Deed of E;tra9$di"ial
Partition and E;"han*e of Shares. As "orre"tl. held b. the CA,
the law does not re8$ire an. spe"ifi" form of written noti"e to
the redemptioner. 2rom s$"h time, he had ! da.s within
whi"h to redeem the propert. sold $nder Arti"le #12. +he
Deed was e;e"$ted November (, #)1)H hen"e, the period to
redeem e;pired on De"ember (, #)1). Conse8$entl., the ri*ht
to redeem was deemed waived, and petitioners are bo$nd b.
s$"h ina"tion of their prede"essor. +he former "annot now be
allowed to e;er"ise the ri*ht and adopt a stan"e "ontrar. to
that ta7en b. the latter. Otherwise stated, the ri*ht to redeem
had lon* e;pired d$rin* the lifetime of the prede"essor and
ma. no lon*er be e;er"ised b. petitioners who are his
s$""essors%in%interest.
:.ID.H SPECIA6 CON+RAC+SH SA6ESH EI+IN&BIS=4EN+
O2 SA6EH CON?EN+IONA6 REDE4P+IONH @=EN
CON+RAC+ PRESB4ED EMBI+A/6E 4OR+&A&EH NO+
APP6ICA/6E IN +=E A/SENCE O2 E6E4EN+S +=EREO2.
K On its fa"e, a do"$ment is "onsidered a "ontra"t of
e8$itable mort*a*e when the "ir"$mstan"es en$merated in
Arti"le #1!2 of the Civil Code are manifest, as follows> ,a-
when the pri"e of the sale with the ri*ht to rep$r"hase is
$n$s$all. inade8$ate, and ,b- when the vendor remains in
possession as lessee or otherwise. Altho$*h it is $ndisp$ted
that An*el 2ernandeC was in a"t$al possession of the propert.,
it is important to note that he did not sell it to respondents. +he
sellers were his "o%owners K Antonio and Demetria
2ernandeC K who, however, are not "laimin* that the sale
between them was an e8$itable mort*a*e. 2or the
pres$mption of an e8$itable mort*a*e to arise, one m$st first
satisf. the re8$irement that the parties entered into a "ontra"t
denominated as a "ontra"t of sale, and that their intention was
to se"$re an e;istin* debt b. wa. of mort*a*e. 2$rthermore,
mere alle*ed inade8$a". of the pri"e does not ne"essaril. void
a "ontra"t of sale, altho$*h the inade8$a". ma. indi"ate that
there was a defe"t in the "onsent, or that the parties reall.
intended a donation, mort*a*e, or some other a"t or "ontra"t.
2inall., $nless the pri"e is *rossl. inade8$ate or sho"7in* to
the "ons"ien"e, a sale is not set aside. In this "ase, petitioners
failed to establish the fair mar7et val$e of the propert. when it
was sold in #)1'. =en"e, there is no basis to "on"l$de that the
pri"e was *rossl. inade8$ate or sho"7in* to the
"ons"ien"e. aE+DI"
1.ID.H O/6I&A+IONS AND CON+RAC+SH ?A6IDI+J O2
A&REE4EN+ @I66 NO+ ORDINARI6J /E DIS+BR/ED /J
+=E COBR+SH APP6IED IN EI+RA3BDICIA6 PAR+I+ION
EIECB+ED IN CASE A+ /AR. K It is a lon*%established
do"trine that the law will not relieve parties from the effe"ts of
an $nwise, foolish or disastro$s a*reement the. entered into
with all the re8$ired formalities and with f$ll awareness of what
the. were doin*. Co$rts have no power to relieve them from
obli*ations the. vol$ntaril. ass$med, simpl. be"a$se their
"ontra"ts t$rn o$t to be disastro$s deals or $nwise
investments. Neither the law nor the "o$rts will e;tri"ate them
from an $nwise or $ndesirable "ontra"t whi"h the. entered into
with all the re8$ired formalities and with f$ll 7nowled*e of its
"onse8$en"es. On the other hand, petitioners herein are
bo$nd b. the e;tra9$di"ial partition, be"a$se "ontra"ts not onl.
ta7e effe"t between the parties, b$t also e;tend to their assi*ns
and heirs. 4oreover, if petitioners intended to ann$l the
e;tra9$di"ial partition for bein* Dlopsided and ini8$ito$s,D then
the. sho$ld have ar*$ed this in a proper a"tion and for$m.
+he. sho$ld have filed an a"tion to ann$l the e;tra9$di"ial
partition and "laimed their ri*htf$l share in the estate,
impleadin* therein the other si*natories to the Deed and not
9$st herein respondents.
'.RE4EDIA6 6A@H E?IDENCEH 2AC+BA6 2INDIN&S O2
COBR+ O2 APPEA6S, &ENERA66J RESPEC+ED. K 2a"t$al
findin*s of the CA s$pported b. s$bstantial eviden"e are
"on"l$sive and bindin*, $nless the. fall $nder the e;"eptions
in $uentes v. Court of Appeals and similar "ases.
D E C I S I O N
1ANGANI2AN, & p>
+he ri*ht of redemption ma. be e;er"ised b. a "o%owner, onl.
when part of the "omm$nit. propert. is sold to a stranger.
@hen the portion is sold to a "o%owner, the ri*ht does not arise
be"a$se a ne' parti"ipant is not added to the "o%
ownership. S=I"D+
(e Case
+he Petition for Review on Certiorari before $s "hallen*es the
3$l. ', 2!!! De"ision of the Co$rt of Appeals ,CA- 1 in CA%&R
C? No. ::21(, whi"h reversed the Re*ional +rial Co$rt ,R+C-
of Da*$pan Cit. ,/ran"h ((- in Civil Case No. D%0#:. 2 +he
assailed De"ision disposed as follows>
D@=ERE2ORE, the appealed de"ision is RE?ERSED and a
NE@ ONE is entered>
D#.Orderin* the partition of 6ot 2))# in the proportion stated in
+ransfer Certifi"ate of +itle No. 2(((!, that is> An*el
2ernandeC, married to CoraCon Cabal K ',##(.(1 s8mH
spo$ses Carlos +ar$n and Nar"isa Nareno K #!)(.:( s8m.

D+he "osts of the s$bdivision shall be e8$itabl. shared b.
plaintiffs%appellants and defendants%appellees.
D2.Orderin* the Re*ister of Deeds of Da*$pan Cit. to iss$e a
separate transfer "ertifi"ate of title ea"h to plaintiffs%appellants
and defendants%appellees "orrespondin* to their respe"tive
shares $pon "ompletion of the partition.D 3
(e $acts
+he ante"edent fa"ts of the "ase are narrated in the assailed
CA De"ision as follows>
DAn 0,2!)%s8$are meter fishpond sit$ated at Arellano%/ani,
Da*$pan Cit. is disp$ted b. FRespondentsG Carlos +ar$n and
Nar"isa Nareno, and FPetitionersG CoraCon
Cabal vda. de 2ernandeC and her "hildren Os"ar, &il and
Armando, all s$rnamed 2ernandeC.
D+he propert. is 7nown as 6ot No. 2))# of the Cadastral
S$rve. of Da*$pan. It was ori*inall. "overed b. OC+ No.
(!)), s$bse8$entl. "an"elled b. +C+ No. 2(((!. +he
brothers Antonio, Santia*o, Demetria and An*el 2ernandeC,
to*ether with their $n"le Armando, "o%owned this propert. to
the e;tent of #E1 thereof. 4 It was s$bse8$entl. in"reased to
#E:, on a""o$nt of the #E1 share of Armando, who died sin*le
and witho$t iss$e, whi"h a""r$ed in favor of the five remainin*
"o%owners.
DOn 3$ne (, #)1', Antonio 2ernandeC sold his share of abo$t
:('.2' s8$are meters to Fthe Spo$sesG +ar$n ,E;h. I-. 5 On
3$ne #0, #)1', Demetria 2ernandeC, also sold her share on
the same fishpond "onsistin* of :('.2' s8$are meters to
FrespondentsG. 6 +h$s, the total area sold to FrespondentsG is
#!)(.:( s8$are meters, more or less. +he two sales were
re*istered and annotated on OC+ No. (!)).
DOn November #(, #)1), the "o%owners of the s$b9e"t fishpond
and another fishpond "overed b. +C+ No. #!)(( e;e"$ted a
Deed of E;tra9$di"ial Partition of two par"els of re*istered land
with e;"han*e of shares. Amon* the parties to the deed are
Antonio, Santia*o, Demetria and An*el, all s$rnamed
2ernandeC.
DIt was stip$lated in the deed that the parties re"o*niCe and
respe"t the sale of a portion of 6ot 2))# "onsistin* of #!)(.:(
s8$are meters previo$sl. sold b. Antonio and Demetria
2ernandeC in favor of FrespondentsG. +his portion was e;"l$ded
in the partition.
D6i7ewise, b. virt$e of the Deed of E;tra9$di"ial Partition, An*el
/. 2ernandeC e;"han*ed his share on the other fishpond
"overed b. +C+ No. #!)(( to the shares of his "o%owners on
the remainin* portion of F6Got No. 2))# "overed b. +C+ No.
#!)(:, ma7in* An*el /. 2ernandeC and ,respondentsG as "o%
owners of 6ot No. 2))#.
D/. virt$e of the terms and "onditions set forth in the Deed,
+C+ No. 2(((! of the Re*istr. of DeedFsG of Da*$pan Cit.,
,E;h. LAL- was iss$ed in favor of An*el /. 2ernandeC and
FrespondentsG. 2rom the time the latter bo$*ht the #!)(.:(%
s8$are%meter portion of the fishpond, the. had been pa.in* the
realt. ta;es thereon. =owever, it was An*el /. 2ernandeC and
later on his heirs, FpetitionersG, who remained in possession of
the entire fishpond.
D@hen An*el /. 2ernandeC was still alive, FrespondentsG
so$*ht the partition of the propert. and their share of its
in"ome. An*el 2ernandeC ref$sed to heed their demand. After
the death of An*el 2ernandeC, FrespondentsG wrote FpetitionersG
of their desire for partition b$t this was re9e"ted b. FpetitionersG.
=en"e, this s$it for partition and dama*es.D 6
Ruling of t(e RC
On A$*$st #, #))1, the R+C rendered 9$d*ment in favor of
petitioners, r$lin* that, $nder Arti"les #12! and #12# of the
Civil Code, the. were entitled to redeem the propert. that the.
had sold to respondents. It f$rther held that the sale was hi*hl.
ini8$ito$s and void for respondentLs fail$re to "ompl. with
Arti"le #12 of the same "ode.
Ruling of t(e Court of Appeals
Reversin* the R+C, the CA held that petitioners were not
entitled to redeem the "ontroversial propert. for several
reasons. $irst, it was An*el 2ernandeC who was its "o%owner at
the time of the saleH hen"e, he was the one entitled to re"eive
noti"e and to redeem the propert., b$t he did not "hoose to
e;er"ise that ri*ht. Second, the e;e"$tion of the Deed of
E;tra9$di"ial Partition was a s$bstantial "omplian"e with the
noti"e re8$irement $nder the law. $inally, it was too late in the
da. to de"lare the e;"han*e hi*hl. ini8$ito$s, when An*el
2ernandeC had not "omplained abo$t it. As his s$""essors%in%
interest, petitioners were bo$nd b. the terms of the a*reement.
=en"e, this Petition. 7
)ssues
In their 4emorand$m, 9 petitioners raise the followin* iss$es>
D#.@hether or not petitioners are entitled to e;er"ise their ri*ht
of le*al redemption. DIES=+
D2.@hether or not the transa"tion is one of e8$itable mort*a*e.
D.@hether or not the deed of e;tra%9$di"ial partition is void and
ineffi"a"io$s.
D(.@hether or not petitioners are entitled to dama*es,
attorne.Ls fees and "osts.
D:.@hether or not the lower "o$rt "ommitted *rave ab$se of
dis"retion amo$ntin* to la"7 of 9$risdi"tion when it s$bstit$ted
its s$rmises, "on9e"t$res and *$esswor7 in pla"e of the trial
"o$rtLs findin*s of fa"t borne b. the eviden"e on re"ord.D 10
(is Court*s Ruling
+he Petition is not meritorio$s.
$irst )ssue>
+ntitle"ent to ,egal Rede"ption
Petitioners aver that the sale to respondents is void, be"a$se it
did not "ompl. with the re8$irements of the Civil Code.
A""ordin* to them, the. were not notified of the sale, b$t
learned abo$t it onl. when the. re"eived the s$mmons for the
partition "ase. +he. "laim their ri*ht to redeem the propert.
$nder the followin* provisions of the Civil Code>
DArti"le #12!.A "o%owner of a thin* ma. e;er"ise the ri*ht of
redemption in "ase the shares of all the other "o%owners or of
an. of them, are sold to a third person. If the pri"e of the
alienation is *rossl. e;"essive, the redemptioner shall pa. onl.
a reasonable one.
DSho$ld two or more "o%owners desire to e;er"ise the ri*ht of
redemption, the. ma. onl. do so in proportion to the share
the. ma. respe"tivel. have in the thin* owned in "ommon.D
DArti"le #12#.+he owners of ad9oinin* lands shall also have the
ri*ht of redemption when a pie"e of r$ral land, the area of
whi"h does not e;"eed one he"tare, is alienated, $nless the
*rantee does not own an. r$ral land.
D+he ri*ht is not appli"able to ad9a"ent lands whi"h are
separated b. broo7s, drains, ravines, roads and other apparent
servit$des for the benefit of other estates.
DIf two or more ad9oinin* owners desire to e;er"ise the ri*ht of
redemption at the same time, the owner of the ad9oinin* land of
smaller area shall be preferredH and sho$ld both lands have
the same area, the one who first re8$ested the redemption.D
;;; ;;; ;;;
DArti"le #12.+he ri*ht of le*al pre%emption or redemption shall
not be e;er"ised e;"ept within thirt. da.s from the noti"e in
writin* b. the prospe"tive vendor, or b. the vendor, as the "ase
ma. be. +he deed of sale shall not be re"orded in the Re*istr.
of Propert., $nless a""ompanied b. an affidavit of the vendor
that he has *iven written noti"e thereof to all possible
redemptioners.
D+he ri*ht of redemption of "o%owners e;"l$des that of
ad9oinin* owners.D
@e disa*ree with petitioners. +r$e, the ri*ht to redeem is
*ranted not onl. to the ori*inal "o%owners, b$t also to all those
who s$bse8$entl. a"8$ire their respe"tive shares while the
"omm$nit. s$bsists. 11 =owever, it m$st be stressed that this
ri*ht of redemption is available onl. when part of the "o%owned
propert. is sold to a third person. Otherwise p$t, the ri*ht to
redeem referred to in Arti"le #12! applies onl. when a portion
is sold to a non%"o%owner.
In this "ase, it is 8$ite "lear that respondents are petitionersL
"o%owners. +he sale of the "ontested propert. to Spo$ses
+ar$n had lon* been "ons$mmated before petitioners
s$""eeded their prede"essor, An*el 2ernandeC. /. the time
petitioners entered into the "o%ownership, respondents were no
lon*er Dthird persons,D b$t had alread. be"ome "o%owners of
the whole propert.. A third person, within the meanin* of Arti"le
#12!, is an.one who is not a "o%owner. 12
In Basa v. Aguilar, 13 this Co$rt has $ne8$ivo"all. r$led that
the ri*ht of redemption ma. be availed of b. a "o%owner, onl.
when the shares of the other owners are sold to a third person.
D6e*al redemption is in the nat$re of a privile*e "reated b. law
partl. for reasons of p$bli" poli". and partl. for the benefit and
"onvenien"e of the redemptioner, to afford him a wa. o$t of
what mi*ht be a disa*reeable or FanG in"onvenient asso"iation
into whi"h he has been thr$st. ,#! 4anresa, (th. Ed., #'.- It is
intended to minimiCe "o%ownership. +he law *rants a "o%owner
the e;er"ise of the said ri*ht of redemption when the shares of
the other owners are sold to a Lthird person.LD 14 +here is no
le*al redemption, either in "ase of a mere lease 15 and if the
p$r"haser is also a tenant. 16
E8$all. $navailin* is petitionersL "ontention that the sale was
void, be"a$se the vendor had not sent an. noti"e in writin* to
the other "o%owners as re8$ired $nder Arti"le #12: of the
Code. Indeed, the Code merel. provides that a deed of sale
shall not be re"orded in the Re*istr. of Propert., $nless
a""ompanied b. an affidavit that a written noti"e has been
*iven to all possible redemptioners. =owever, it does not state
that, b. reason of s$"h la"7 of noti"e, the sale shall be"ome
void.
3$rispr$den"e affirms the need for noti"e, b$t its form has
been the s$b9e"t of var.in* interpretations. Conejero v. Court
of Appeals 16 held that a written noti"e was still re8$ired, even
if the redemptioner had a"t$al prior 7nowled*e of the sale.
=owever, in %istrito v. Court of Appeals, 17 the Co$rt r$led that
written noti"e was not ne"essar., if the "o%owner was a"t$all.
aware of the sale. @hile the law re8$ires that the noti"e m$st
be in writin*, it does not pres"ribe an. parti"$lar form, so lon*
as the reasons for a written noti"e are satisfied
otherwise. 19 +h$s, in a "ivil "ase for "olle"tion of a share in
the rentals b. an alle*ed b$.er of a "o%owned propert., the
re"eipt of a s$mmons b. a "o%owner has been held to
"onstit$te a"t$al 7nowled*e of the sale. On that basis, the "o%
owner ma. e;er"ise the ri*ht of redemption within ! da.s
from the finalit. of the de"ision. 20

Appl.in* the presentl. prevailin* prin"iples dis"$ssed above,
petitionersL prede"essor K An*el 2ernandeC K is deemed to
have been *iven noti"e of the sale to respondents b. the
e;e"$tion and si*nin* of the Deed of E;tra9$di"ial Partition and
E;"han*e of Shares. As "orre"tl. held b. the CA, the law does
not re8$ire an. spe"ifi" form of written noti"e to the
redemptioner. 21 2rom s$"h time, he had ! da.s within whi"h
to redeem the propert. sold $nder Arti"le #12. +he Deed was
e;e"$ted November (, #)1)H hen"e, the period to redeem
e;pired on De"ember (, #)1). Conse8$entl., the ri*ht to
redeem was deemed waived, and petitioners are bo$nd b.
s$"h ina"tion of their prede"essor. +he former "annot now be
allowed to e;er"ise the ri*ht and adopt a stan"e "ontrar. to
that ta7en b. the latter. Otherwise stated, the ri*ht to redeem
had lon* e;pired d$rin* the lifetime of the prede"essor and
ma. no lon*er be e;er"ised b. petitioners who are his
s$""essors%in%interest.
Second )ssue>
Sale or +-uitable .ortgage/
Petitioners "ontend that the sale was onl. an e8$itable
mort*a*e be"a$se ,#- the pri"e was *rossl. inade8$ate, and
,2- the vendors remained in possession of the land and
en9o.ed its fr$its. Sin"e the propert. is sit$ated primel. within
the "it. proper, the pri"e of P',112 for #,!)(.:( s8$are meters
is s$pposedl. $n"ons"ionable. 4oreover, sin"e 3$ne (, #)1'
$p to the present, the vendees ,or herein respondents- have
alle*edl. never been in a"t$al possession of the land.
+he "ontention is $ntenable. On its fa"e, a do"$ment is
"onsidered a "ontra"t of e8$itable mort*a*e when the
"ir"$mstan"es en$merated in Arti"le #1!2 of the Civil Code are
manifest, as follows> ,a- when the pri"e of the sale with the
ri*ht to rep$r"hase is $n$s$all. inade8$ate, 22 and ,b- when
the vendor remains in possession as lessee or
otherwise. 23 Altho$*h it is $ndisp$ted that An*el 2ernandeC
was in a"t$al possession of the propert., it is important to note
that he did not sell it to respondents. +he sellers were his "o%
owners K Antonio and Demetria 2ernandeC K who, however,
are not "laimin* that the sale between them was an e8$itable
mort*a*e. 2or the pres$mption of an e8$itable mort*a*e to
arise, one m$st first satisf. the re8$irement that the parties
entered into a "ontra"t denominated as a "ontra"t of sale, and
that their intention was to se"$re an e;istin* debt b. wa. of
mort*a*e. 24
2$rthermore, mere alle*ed inade8$a". of the pri"e does not
ne"essaril. void a "ontra"t of sale, altho$*h the inade8$a".
ma. indi"ate that there was a defe"t in the "onsent, or that the
parties reall. intended a donation, mort*a*e, or some other a"t
or "ontra"t. 25 2inall., $nless the pri"e is *rossl. inade8$ate or
sho"7in* to the "ons"ien"e, 26 a sale is not set aside. In this
"ase, petitioners failed to establish the fair mar7et val$e of the
propert. when it was sold in #)1'. =en"e, there is no basis to
"on"l$de that the pri"e was *rossl. inade8$ate or sho"7in* to
the "ons"ien"e.
(ird )ssue>
!alidity of t(e +0trajudicial Partition
Petitioners also assail the partition as lopsided and ini8$ito$s.
+he. ar*$e that their prede"essor stood to lose :,()0.#(
s8$are meters $nder the e;tra9$di"ial partition.
@e are not "onvin"ed. It is a lon*%established do"trine that the
law will not relieve parties from the effe"ts of an $nwise, foolish
or disastro$s a*reement the. entered into with all the re8$ired
formalities and with f$ll awareness of what the. were doin*.
Co$rts have no power to relieve them from obli*ations the.
vol$ntaril. ass$med, simpl. be"a$se their "ontra"ts t$rn o$t to
be disastro$s deals or $nwise investments. 26 Neither the law
nor the "o$rts will e;tri"ate them from an $nwise or
$ndesirable "ontra"t whi"h the. entered into with all the
re8$ired formalities and with f$ll 7nowled*e of its
"onse8$en"es. 27 On the other hand, petitioners herein are
bo$nd b. the e;ira9$di"ial partition, be"a$se "ontra"ts not onl.
ta7e effe"t between the parties, b$t also e;tend to their assi*ns
and heirs. 29
4oreover, if petitioners intended to ann$l the e;tra9$di"ial
partition for bein* Dlopsided and ini8$ito$s,D then the. sho$ld
have ar*$ed this in a proper a"tion and for$m. +he. sho$ld
have filed an a"tion to ann$l the e;tra9$di"ial partition and
"laimed their ri*htf$l share in the estate, impleadin* therein the
other si*natories to the Deed and not 9$st herein respondents.
In an. event, a per$sal of the Deed of E;tra9$di"ial Partition
with E;"han*e of Shares reveals that the partition of 6ot Nos.
2))# and 2)2( was done e8$all. and fairl.. Indeed, #,1(#.0!
s8$are meters of 6ot No. 2))# 30 and #!,)'#.0! s8$are
meters of 6ot No. 2)2(%/ 31 were ori*inall. *iven to all the "o%
owners K e;"ept Antonio, Demetria and Santia*o 2ernandeC,
who had alread. sold parts of their share to third persons.
=owever, An*el 2ernandeC a*reed and stip$lated in the same
Deed that he had traded his share in 6ot No. 2)2(%/ for the
entire 6ot No. 2))#, e;"ept the portion alread. sold to
respondents. 32
+a7in* these stip$lations into "onsideration, we are in"lined to
believe that the swappin* of shares b. the heirs was more
favorable to the late An*el 2ernandeC, be"a$se his ownership
be"ame "onti*$o$s and "ompa"t in onl. one fishpond, instead
of bein* merel. shared with the other "o%heirs in two different
fishponds. 33
$ourt( )ssue>
%a"ages and Attorney*s $ees
PetitionersL "laim that the. are entitled to P:!,!!! as attorne.s
fees and dama*es deserves s"ant "onsideration. It has been
"learl. established that respondents are "o%owners of the
s$b9e"t propert.. Bnder Arti"le ()( of the Civil Code, ea"h "o%
owner ma. demand at an. time the partition of the thin* owned
in "ommon. =en"e, respondentsL a"tion for partition was not an
$nfo$nded s$it. ?eril., it was fo$nded on a ri*ht *iven b. law.
$ift( )ssue>
$actual $indings of t(e CA
Petitioners insist that the CA made some fa"t$al findin*s that
were neither in "onformit. with those of the R+C nor borne b.
the eviden"e on re"ord. +he. assert that the appellate "o$rt
erred in r$lin* that the e;tra9$di"ial partition had been freel.
and willf$ll. entered into when, in fa"t, An*el /. 2ernandeC had
been short"han*ed b. :,()0.#( s8$are meters. +he. also
"ontend that the re*istration of the two Deeds of Sale in favor
of respondents was not valid, be"a$se it was not a""ompanied
b. an affidavit that written noti"e had been served to all
possible redemptioners.
@e are not pers$aded. @e do not find an. fa"t$al or le*al
basis to "on"l$de that the e;tra9$di"ial partition was ini8$ito$s,
and that the sale of Antonio and DemetriaLs share in 6ot No.
2))# is void. 2a"t$al findin*s of the CA s$pported b.
s$bstantial eviden"e are "on"l$sive and bindin*, 34 $nless
the. fall $nder the e;"eptions in $uentes vs. Court of
Appeals 35 and similar "ases.
@=ERE2ORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed
De"ision A22IR4ED. Costs a*ainst petitioners.
OOO 1$ernandez v. Spouses arun, 2.R. 3o. 456787, 3ove"ber
45, 9::9)