1602

Heirs of Soliva vs Soliva

FACTS: Sps. Ceferino and Juana owned 3 parcels of land, one of which was partly owned by
Mancol. They had 5 children, namely Dorotea, Cenon, Severino, Victoriano, and Antero. Mancol
sold his portion of the property to Cenon, who left the possession with his parents. When
Ceferino died, Cenon took over the administration of the entire estate, including Parcel 1.
Severino received as his share in their parents’ estate the 5,136 m2 land (Parcel 3), he
subsequently sold the lot. Juana sold to Cenon Parcel 2 through a Deed of Conditional Sale.
Cenon then sold to Roleda a 4,092 m2 portion of Parcel 2, who subsequently sold it to SEI.
Cenon died and was survived by his children. Antero instituted the complaint for Partition and
Accounting, against respondents, heirs of Cenon, Roleda and SEI to (1) account for the proceeds
of the sale of the portion of Parcel 2. RTC ruled, among others, that Severino and the heirs of
Cenon are excluded from any share in the remaining portion of Parcel 2 after deducting, from
its total area of 14,609 m2 , the area corresponding to the lots sold to SEI. Severino was
excluded because he already received his share in the inheritance,the 5136 m land. Cenon is
excluded from the partition of Parcel 2 as he has also received his share, Cenon purchased only
a 1600 m2 portion of Parcel 2 from Mancol. Therefore, this is the only portion which he can
validly sell to Roleda, and the excess in the 4092 m2 portion he sold to Roleda rightfully pertains
to the heirs of the spouses. This excess of 2582 m2 should be treated as Cenon’s share in their
parent’s estate that bars him from participating in the partition of Parcel 2. Upon appeal, the CA
modified the decision declaring, that Cenon validly acquired 10,706.3 m2 of Parcel 2, which he
has sold partly to Roleda, and the remaining to be divided among his heirs. As for Ceferino’s
other heirs, they each acquired a pro indiviso share over the remaining 3,902.7 m2 of Parcel 2.
However, since Severino had already received his share in 1959, only Victoriano, Antero and
Dorotea, as represented by her heirs Sergio and Romeo, are entitled to participate in its
partition. Antero raised this petition, alleging that the CA improperly applied accretion because
Severino did not repudiate his inheritance. The Court said that the CA did not even mention
accretion in its decision. the share of Severino was added to the shares of Juana, Victoriano,
Cenon, Dorotea and Antero, not pursuant to the provisions of NCC Art. 1015. The CA did not
use or mention the term accretion. On the contrary, the CA added Severino’s share to those of
the other heirs because it recognized the fact that Severino has already received his share of
the estate.

Issue: WON the CA erred in applying the concept of accretion.

Ruling: NO, the CA did not apply accretion in this case.

• According to NCC Art. 1015, accretion is a right by virtue of which, when two or more persons
are called to the same inheritance, devise or legacy, the part assigned to the one who
renounces or cannot receive his share, or who died before the testator, is added or
incorporated to that of his coheirs, co-devisees, or co-legatees.
• A careful reading of the CA’s Decision would show that the share of Severino was added to
the shares of Juana, Victoriano, Cenon, Dorotea and Antero, not pursuant to the provisions of
NCC Art. 1015. The CA did not use or mention the term accretion.

• On the contrary, the CA added Severino’s share to those of the other heirs because it
recognized the fact that Severino has already received his share of the estate. Thus, rather than
receiving an area of 1,084 m2 each, the remaining five heirs of Ceferino, Juana, Cenon,
Victoriano, Dorotea and Antero, would each receive a total area of 1,300.9 m2 of Ceferino’s
inheritance in Parcel 2, as Severino was no longer entitled to share in its partition. The CA’s
computation of the parties’ respective interests in Parcel 2 already excludes Severino.

Ruling: Petition is DENIED.

Sy vs De Vera- Manalo
1606

Cebu State College vs. Misterio

Facts: On Dec 31, 1956, Asuncion Sadaya (seller) sold her registered land to Sudlon Agricultural
High School or SAHS (buyer), subject to the seller’s right of repurchase after SAHS shall have
ceased to exist, or shall have transferred its school site elsewhere. The right to repurchase was
annotated on SAHS title.

On June 10, 1983, B.P. No. 412 took effect consolidating SAHS with Cebu State College of
Science and Technology (CSCST), and transferring its properties thereon. On Aug 19, 1988, [32
years] the heirs of Sadaya sought to repurchase the subject property, notifying the governor of
the Province of Cebu on the ground that SAHS ceased to exist. CSCST refused saying SAHS still
existed.
Thus, the heirs filed a complaint for Nullity of Sale and/or Redemption against CSCST. The RTC
ruled in favor of Sadaya heirs, nullifying the contract of sale.

During the pendency of the appeal, heirs amended their complaint this time citing as a ground
for redemption, the transfer of school site. The CA reversed on the ground of prescription, it
said that the seller’s right to repurchase had expired four years from the effectivity of B.P. Blg.
412. The SC affirmed.

Issue: Were the Sadaya heirs still entitled to exercise its right of redemption over the subject
property?

HELD – NO.
In a pacto de retro sale, the property subject of the sale may be redeemed only within the limits
prescribed by the Art. 1606. Under the said provision, the period for redemption shall not
exceed 4 years from the date of the execution of the contract of sale, if there is no agreement
as to the period; and if there is such agreement, it must not exceed 10 years.

If the period for exercise is not agreed upon, but the same is suspended or made conditional, as
in this case, the four-year prescriptive period shall be counted from the happening of the
condition, PROVIDED that the said exercise shall not exceed 10 years from the execution of the
contract. In other words, where a condition was imposed on the right of the seller-a-retro to
repurchase the property, it must be exercised within 4 years from the happening of the
condition, or 10 years from the execution of the contract, whichever comes first.

To allow the seller a period beyond 10 years for the exercise of such right would go against the
spirit of the law. The latter being intended to limit uncertain conditions relative to the title to
real estate. It was said that longer periods of redemption works to the detriment of the
property since a buyer, who is uncertain of his rights, will not cultivate or preserve the property
in the same way that an absolute owner will.
Decision reversed and set aside.
Saclolo vs. Marquito
1616

Hojas vs. Philippines Amanah Bank

FACTS: The petitioners, Spouses Rubin and Portia Hojas (petitioners), alleged that on April 11,
1980, they secured a loan from respondent Philippine Amanah Bank (PAB) in the amount of
P450,000.00; that this loan was secured by a mortgage, They made various payments
amounting to P486,162. however, PAB did not properly credit their payments, only 13
payments were credited, that for failure to pay the loan, PAB applied for the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the mortgaged real properties of petitioners.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent bank is correct when it sold the property at public auction

HELD: Respondents' repeated requests for information as regards the amount of loan availed
from the credit line and the amount of redemption, and petitioner's failure to accede to said
requests do not invalidate the foreclosure. Respondents can find other ways to know the
redemption price. For one, they can examine the Certificate of Sale registered with the Register
of Deeds to verify the purchase price, or upon the filing of their complaint, they could have
moved for a computation of the redemption price and consigned the same to the court. At any
rate, whether or not respondents '"were diligent in asserting their willingness to pay is
irrelevant. Redemption within the period allowed by law is not a matter of intent but a question
of payment or valid tender of the full redemption price within said period.