Spouses Ramon Doromal Sr and Rosario Salas, and Spouses Ramon Doromal Jr and Gaudelia Vega v CA and Filomena

Javellana
G.R. No.L-36083; 5 September 1975; Barredo, J
Digest prepared by Gertrude Gamonnac
FACTS:
1. Lot 3504 situated in La Paz Iloilo with an area of a little more than 2 hectares was originally decreed in the name of the late
Justice Antonio Horilleno in 1916 under OCT 1314.
2. Before he died, he executed a last will and testament attesting to the fact that it was a co-ownership between himself and his 6
other siblings (Luis, Soledad, Fe, Rosita, Carlos, Esperanza). Since Esperanza had already died, she is represented by her
daughter Filomena Javellana (RESPONDENT). They each own 1/7.
3. Even though their right had not as yet been annotated in the title, the 6 co-owners (except Filomena) wanted to sell their
shares. The siblings hired an acquaintance Cresencia Harder, to look for buyers who came across the Doromals (PETITIONERS).
4. The records reveal that as early as October 22, 1967, Carlos had received from Ramon Doromal Jr. P5,000 in check as earnest
money and the price agreed upon was P5/square meter.
5. Carlos sent Filomena a letter dated November 5, 1967 telling her about the earnest money and the agreed price of P5/sqm
6. Since the siblings lived in various places in the Philippines, they all executed various powers of attorney in favor of Mary
(daughter of Justice Horilleno) in preparation for the execution of sale.
7. A power of attorney of similar to what the siblings signed was sent to Filomena along with the letter from Carlos dated January
18, 1968 informing her that the price was P4/square meter.
8. Filomena was not agreeable to the terms so she did not sign the power of attorney. The other 6 went ahead and sold their sale
through their common attorney Mary.
9. After complying with the requisites of publication, hearing and notice, the siblings were able to have the title in Justice
Horillenos name cancelled by the Register of Deeds and a new TCT was issued (6/7 under the 6 siblings name and 1/7 in
Filomenas name). That same day, the title for the 6/7 part was cancelled and was registered in the name of the Doromals.
10. The next day, the Doromals gave a check to Carlos amounting to 97,000. Aside from this amount, the Doromals also paid an
P18,250 in cash since the agreed amount was P5/square meter.
11. A few months later, Filomena, through her nephew Attorney Villanueva, sent a letter to the Doromals stating that she wanted
to repurchase the 6/7 share of the land for P30,000.00. The Doromals refused hence Filomena filed an action for redemption.
12. ARGUMENT OF FILOMENA: As co-owner, she had the right to redeem at the price stated in the deed of sale which is P30,000.00
13. ARGUMENT OF DOROMALS: Filomena had no more right to redeem. If ever she does, it should be at the true and real price
paid by them which is P115,250.00
14. RTC ruled in favor of Filomena. CA reversed the RTC decision.
ISSUES:
WON Filomenas right to redeem the party has expired
NO. Filomena can still redeem and the redemption price she should pay should be that stated in the deed of sale which is P30,000
notwithstanding that the preponderance of the evidence proves that the actual price paid by Doromals was P115,250.
HELD
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
RATIO:
1. The pertinent provisions are
Art. 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any
of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a
reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share
they may respectively have in the thing owned in common. (1522a)
ART. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption 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.
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners

2.

NOTICE IN WRITING REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 1623

a) The notice required by Art 1623 should be a notice not only of a perfected sale but of the actual execution and delivery of
the deed of sale. This is implied from the latter portion of the article which requires that before a Register of Deeds can
record a sale by a co-owner, there must be presented to him, an affidavit to the effect that the notice of the sale has been
sent in writing to the other co-owners.
b) A sale may not be presented to the register of deeds for registration unless it be in the form of a duly executed public
instrument.
c) Moreover, the law prefers that all the terms and conditions of the sale should be definite and in writing.
d) Article 1619 bestows unto a co-owner the right to redeem and to be subrogated under the same terms and conditions
stipulated in the contract.
This means that in order to avoid any controversy as to the terms and conditions under which the right to redeem
may be exercised, it is best that the period therefore should not be deemed to have commenced unless the notice of
the disposition is made after the formal deed of disposal has been duly executed.

3.

WERE THE LETTERS SENT BY CARLOS SUFFICIENT TO SERVE AS NOTICE? NO!

a) First of all, there is no showing that the 2 letters sent by Carlos were received by respondent Filomena
b) Also neither of the said letters referred to a consummated sale.
The P5,000 paid by Ramon Doromal Jr. to Carlos was not in the concept of the earnest money contemplated in Article
1482 of the Civil Code hence it does not signify the perfection of the sale.
SC said that viewed in the backdrop of the factual milieu shown by the record, the P5,000 was paid in the concept of
earnest money as contemplated in the Old Civil Code which is only a guarantee that the buyer would not back out. This
can be seen from the fact that there is no agreement yet as to the price.
c) Lastly, it was Carlos alone who signed them. As to the letter dated January 18, 1968, the powers of attorney from the
various co-owners were still to be secured.
d) In other words, while the letters relied upon by the Doromals could convey the idea that more or less some kind of
consensus had been arrived at among the other co-owners to sell to them the property in dispute, it cannot be said that
such a sale had even been actually perfected.

4.

Since it is not disputed that the respondent Filomena was never notified in writing of the deed of sale by which petitioners
acquired the subject property, it necessarily follows that her tender to redeem the same made on June 10, 1968 was well within
the period prescribed by law.
Indeed, it is immaterial when she might have actually come to know about said deed, it appearing that she has never
been shown a copy thereof through a written communication by either the petitioners-purchasers or any of her coowners

5.

AS TO THE PRICE WHICH RESPONDENT OFFERED FOR THE REDEMPTION

a) Petitioners raise the issue that the price they paid was more than P30,000. As shown by the check, they paid an additional
amount of P97,000 hence the total price they paid was P115,250.
b) TC found out that the consideration of P30,000 only was placed in the deed of sale to minimize the payment of the
registration fees, stamps and sales tax.
c) Being patently violative of public policy and injurious to public interest, the seemingly wide practice of understating
considerations of transactions for the purpose of evading taxes and fees due to the government must be condemned and
all parties guilty thereof must be made to suffer the consequences of their ill-advised agreement to defraud the state.
d) As the 6 co-owners are in pari-delicto with petitioners Doromals in committing tax evasion, they should not receive any
consideration from any court in respect to the money paid for the sale in dispute. Their situation is similar to that of parties
to an illegal contract.
e) CA is correct in stating that the redemption price should only be for the price stipulated in the deed which is P30,000
regardless of what might have been actually paid by the petitioners.

6.

WOULD THAT CONSTITUTE AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT ON THE PART OF FILOMENA? NO!
a) The purpose of the affidavit stated in Article 1623 is to give a clear and unmistakable guide to redemtptioner, on how much
he should pay and when he should redeem.
b) From this must follow that notice must have been intended to state the truth and if vendor and vendee should have
instead, decided to state an untruth therein, it is they who should bear the consequences of having thereby misled the
redemptioner who had the right to rely and act thereon and on nothing else.

c)

Hence if the Doromals only complied with the law, they would not have been obligated to accept the redemption money of
P30,000.
d) Lastly, it should be remembered that the right of respondent Filomena is not contractual, but a legal one, and the law is
definite that she can subrogate herself in the place of the buyer upon the same terms and conditions stipulated in the
contract.
CONCURRING OPINION
Teehankee, J
1.
2.

3.

4.

The legal (and moral) right of private respondent Filomena as 1/7 pro-indiviso co-owner to exercise the right granted her by the
Civil Code of legal redemption of the pro-indiviso 6/7 share of the property which was sold by her co-owners to the Doromals
for the stipulated contractual price of P30,000 is unassailable.
It is admitted in the record (from the Doromals own evidence and the TCs factual findings) that the Doromals and the coowners had criminally understated and falsified the contractual price in the deed of sale as registered in the Register of Deeds to
be P30,000 instead of P115,250 as actually paid by the Doromals, admittedly for the illegal and criminal purpose to minimize
the payment of the registration fees, stamps, and sales tax.
This criminal and illegal conduct in no way entitles the Doromals to claim callously as against respondent redemptioner who is
merely exercising her legal right of redemption to be subrogated, upon the same terms and conditions stipulated in the
contract, in the place of the Doromals as third-person buyers that she may only redeem the property from them by paying the
larger amount of P115,250 that they actall paid the co-owners for their 6/7 share of the property.
By virtue of the rule of in pari delicto, they cannot even seek recourse against the co-owners to refund to them the difference
between the redemption price (P30,000) and the much larger amount (P115,250) that they actually paid.