Caro v. Court of Appeals 113 SCRA 10 (Case Digest)

 

Caro v. Court of Appeals

113 SCRA 10

 

 

Facts:

Alfredo Benito, Mario Benito and Benjamin Benito were the original co-owners of two parcels of land. Mario’s] surviving wife, Basilia Lahorra and his father, Saturnino Benito, were subsequently appointed in Special Proceeding No. 508 of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon as joint administrators of Mario's estate.

One of the co-owners, Benjamin Benito, executed a deed of absolute sale of his one-third undivided portion over said parcels of land in favor of herein petitioner, Luz Caro.

Private respondent Basilia Lahorra Vda. de Benito sent to petitioner thru her counsel, a written offer to redeem the said one-third undivided share.

After hearing the evidence, the trial judge dismissed the complaint on the grounds that: (a) private respondent, as administratrix of the intestate estate of Mario Benito, does not have the power to exercise the right of legal redemption, and (b) Benjamin Benito substantially complied with his obligation of furnishing.

The fact is that as early as 1960, co-ownership of the parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-609 and T-610 was terminated when Alfredo Benito, Luz Caro and the Intestate Estate of Mario Benito, represented by administrators Saturnino Benito, as trustee and representative of the heirs of Mario Benito, agreed to subdivide the property.

 

 

Issue:

 Whether or not CA erred in allowing the exercise of the right of legal redemption with respect to the lots in question.

 

 

Held:

Yes, because the co-ownership already extinguished.

 

 

Ratio:

Inasmuch as the purpose of the law in establishing the right of legal redemption between co-owners is to reduce the number of participants until the community is done away with (Viola vs. Tecson, 49 Phil. 808), once the property is subdivided and distributed among the co-owners, the community has terminated and there is no reason to sustain any right of legal redemption.