UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Sales

Dizon (E2024) Professor Gerard Chan

Hernaez v. Hernaez
G.R. No. 10027 – November. 13, 1915
En banc | Trent, J.
Topic: Exceptions to seller not owner at delivery; estoppel

Article/s Invoked:
Art. 1067, CC (now 1088). If any of the heirs should sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the division,
all or any of the coheirs may subrogate himself in the place of the purchaser, reimbursing him for the value of
the purchase, provided they do so within the period of a month, to be counted from the time they were informed
thereof.

Parties: Rosendo Hernaez y Espinosa, plaintiff-appellant

Mateo Hernaez y Espinosa, et al., defendants-appellants

Doctrine: Estoppel, innocent purchaser - Where the true owner of property, for however short a time, holds
out another or, with knowledge of his own right, allows another to appear as the owner of or as having full
power of disposition over the property, and innocent third parties are thus led into dealing with such apparent
owner, they will be protected.

Estoppel, subsequent purchaser with notice - The holder [here Montelibano] of a prior equitable right has
priority over the purchaser [here Rosendo Hernaez] over a subsequent estate (whether legal or equitable)
without value or with notice of the equitable right.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Following the death of his parents, Domingo Hernaez sold all his interest in both of their estates to his own
son, Vicente Hernaez. In spite of this, Domingo executed a document of sale in favor of Alejandro
Montelibano six years later, in which he conveyed his undivided interest in his father’s estate and 1/18th of his
undivided interest in his mother’s estate. On the same day, he executed another document of sale in favor of
Jose Montelibano Uy-Cana for 4/18ths of his interest in his mother’s estate; both sales were made with the
connivance of Vicente. This meant that although Vicente had purchased all of his father’s interest in the estates
of his grandparents and was its undoubted owner, he is estopped from asserting his title as against either of
the vendees mentioned in the documents of sale (see Doctrine 1).

Uy-Cana then sold his interest to Alejandro Montelibano; by this transfer, Montelibano stood owner of all the
interest of Domingo in the estate of the father, and 5/18ths of his interest in the estate of the mother.

Rosendo Hernaez another son of the deceased couple and administrator of the estates, was notified of
Montelibano’s purchases following Montelibano’s motion in the administration proceedings asking that
Montelibano be substituted as assignee of the interests of various heirs of the estate, which he acquired by
purchase. In spite of this, Rosendo entered into a contract of sale with Vicente, whereby Vicente purported to
convey all the interest he had acquired from his father. Rosendo did this with full knowledge of the previous
facts; he, therefore, acquired 13/18ths of the interest of Domingo in the estate of the latter’s mother and nothing
more (see Doctrine 2).

Rosendo instituted an action seeking to subrogate himself in the rights acquired by Montelibano in the estate.
The trial court found that Rosendo was not chargeable with notice prior to his notification of Montelibano’s
motion in the administration proceedings, entitling him to exercise his right of subrogation. The trial court
decreed that Rosendo should pay Montelibano the sum for the privilege of exercising the right of subrogation.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Sales
Dizon (E2024) Professor Gerard Chan
ISSUE/S & RATIO/S
W/N Rosendo is estopped from seeking to subrogate himself in the rights acquired by Montelibano in
the estate—NO.
• Montelibano acquired his interest in the estate for a valuable consideration and in good faith. Rosendo
(Hernaez) only has the right of subrogation allowed him by Art. 1067 (now 1088) of the CC. It is clear
from the findings of the trial court that Hernaez has opportunely asserted his right of subrogation and
is entitled to exercise this right in accordance with the provision quoted.
• The trial court erred in ruling that Hernaez needed to pay Montelibano for the privilege of exercising
the right, as 1067 provides that the coheir may exercise this right of subrogation upon the payment to
the purchaser of another heir’s interest the purchase price.
• If the interest had not been resold, Hernaez would have had to pay only the price for which Uy-Cana
acquired it; the purpose of the article cannot be evaded by a reconveyance of the interest to a third
person at a higher price. Subsequent purchasers of the interest acquire it burdened with the right of
subrogation of coheirs at the price for which the heir who sold it parted with it.

RULING
Judgment affirmed and modified. Price of subrogation of the interest originally purchased by Uy-Cana was
substituted for the sum of P10,000 instead of P4,500.

NOTES