B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cruz v Leis
I. Recit-ready summary
Adriano Leis and Gertrudes Isidro got married in 1923. The latter acquired
from DANR a parcel of land, which was titled under her name as a widow.
Adriano died in 1973 without leaving a will. Thereafter, Gertrudes obtained
a loan from Cruz for 15k, at 5% interest which was secured by a mortgage
over the land from DANR. She also executed 2 documents: the pacto de
rectro sale and a deed of absolute sale with a right to repurchase. However,
she failed to repurchase it after 1 year so she consolidated the ownership of
the land in favor of Cruz. Therafter, when Gertrudes died, Cruz demanded
her heirs to vacate the premises but they refused. So, the heirs filed a
complaint against the Cruz’ with the RTC who ruled in their favor, holding
that the land was conjugal property, making it subject to the rules of co-
ownership, thus the heirs are the owners. CA affirmed this ruling because
Cruz wasn’t able to get a judicial order consolidating the land under his name
after Gertrude failed to repurchase the land.
Issue is WON Cruz is the owners of the subject property. YES, though
there was a co-ownership between Gertrudes and Adriano, the heirs
failed to exercise their right of repurchase, thus the land is transferred
to Cruz.
II. Facts of the case
On April 19, 1923, Adriano Leis and Gertrudes Isidtro got married. On
April 27, 1955, Gertrudes acquired from the Department of Agriculture and
Natural Resources (DANR) a parcel of land (100 sqm) in Rizal. The Deed of
Sale described Gertrudes as a widow. On March 2, 1956 a TCT was issued
in the name of Gertrudes Isidro (referred to therein as widow).
On December 2, 1973, Adriano died and no will was executed before his
death. Thereafter, on Feb 5, 1985, Gertrudes obtained a loan from petitioners
(Cruz) in the amount 15k at 5% interest secured by a mortgage over the
subject property. However, Gertrudes failed to pay the loan on due date.
Thus, she executed 2 contracts in favor of petitioners: (1) Kasunduan – a
pacto de retro sale with the price of P39,083 granting Gertrudes the right to
repurches after a year; and (2) Kasunduan ng Tuwirang Bilihan – a Deed of
Absolute Sale covering the subject property of P39,083.
G.R. NO
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE:
Cruz v Leis
Gertrudes failed to repurchase the property. Thus, ownership was
consolidated in the name of Alexander Cruz cancelling the name of
Fertrudes. On June 9, 1987, Gertrudes died and the private respondents (her
heirs) received demands to vacate the premises. They complained about the
demands. RTC rendered a decision in favor of them holding that the land was
conjugal property acquired during the marriage of Adriano and Gertrudes so
they were the valid owners of the property. CA affirmed this decision.
Petitioners Cruz are now contending (1st) that the property is not
conjugal but is owned exclusively by Gertrudes as decribed in the TCT.
Moreover, they held that (2nd) Gertrudes’ redemption of the property from
the Daily Savings Bank vested in her the ownership over the same property
to the exclusion of her co-owners (‘cause in 1983, Gertrudes redeemed the
disputed property which was foreclosed by. Daily Savings Bank in 1981).
III. Issue/s
WON Cruz are the owners of the subject property. YES, though there was
a co-ownership between Gertrudes and Adriano, the heirs failed to
exercise their right of repurchase, thus the land is transferred to Cruz.
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
1st contention:
The paraphernal or conjugal nature of the property is not determinative
of the ownership of the disputed property. Gertrudes Isidro would have
absolute right to dispose the same either way and the ownership was vested
in petitioners upon the failure of Gertrudes to redeem the property
If the property were conjugal, upon the death of Adriano, the conjugal
partnership was terminated entitling Gertrudes the half of the property and
the other half was transmitted upon his death to his heirs which includes
Gertrudes who is entitled to the same share of that of each of the legitimate
children. A regime of CO-OWNERSHIP arose between Gertrudes and the
other heirs.
2nd contention:
PONENTE:
DIGEST MAKER:
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz v Leis Cruz v Leis

There is no merit in this contention as the redemption of the land does V. Disposition
not terminate the co-ownership nor give her title to the entire land subject of
the co-ownership (Adille v. CA) WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED in
that the petitioners are deemed owners of the property by reason of the failure
Art. 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners of the vendor, Gertrudes Isidro, to repurchase the same within the period
to contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in stipulated. However, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 130584, in the name of
common and to the taxes. Any one of the latter may exempt himself from this Alexander M. Cruz, which was issued without judicial order, is hereby
obligation by renouncing so much of his undivided interest as may be ordered CANCELLED, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 43100 in the
equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes. No such waiver shall be name of Gertrudes Isidro is ordered REINSTATED, without prejudice to
made if it is prejudicial to the co-ownership. (Co-ownership remains) compliance by petitioners with the provisions of Article 1607 of the Civil
Code.
The result is that the property remains to be in a condition of co-
ownership. While a vendee a retro, under Article 1613 of the Code, "may not VI. Notes
be compelled to consent to a partial redemption," the redemption by one co-
heir or co-owner of the property in its totality does not vest in him ownership
over it. Failure on the part of all the co-owners to redeem it entitles the vendee
a retro to retain the property and consolidate title thereto in his name (Supra,
art. 1607). But the provision does not give to the redeeming co-owner the
right to the entire property. It does not provide for a mode of terminating a
co-ownership.

HOWEVER,
While as a rule, a co-owner such as Gertrudes could only dispose her
share in the property owned in common, unfortunately for private
respondents, the property was registered in TCT solely in the name of
“Gertrudes Isidro, widow”.

Where a parcel of land, forming part of the undistributed properties of

the dissolved conjugal partnership of gains, is sold by a widow to a purchaser
who merely relied on the face of the certificate of title thereto, issued solely
in the name of the widow, the purchaser acquires a valid title to the land even
as against the heirs of the deceased spouse.

The rationale for this rule is that "a person dealing with registered land
is not required to go behind the register to determine the condition of the
property. He is only charged with notice of the burdens on the property which
are noted on the face of the register or the certificate of title. To require him
to do more is to defeat one of the primary objects of the Torrens system.

G.R. NO PONENTE:
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: DIGEST MAKER: