Case Digest: Angela M. Butte vs. Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. G.R. No. L-15499, February 28, 1962

                                    Art. 776, 777 | Succession, Right of Legal Redemption

Provision:

Art. 776. The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death.

Art. 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.

Art 947. The legatee or devisee acquires a right to the pure and simple legacies or devisees from the death of the testator, and transmits it to his heirs. 

Ponente:

Reyes, J.B.L.,

Facts:

Jose V. Ramirez co-owned a house and lot with five others. 

In 1951, Jose V. Ramirez died, leading to estate settlement in a special proceeding including the one-sixth (1/6) undivided share in the said property.

His will bequeathed his estate to children, grandchildren, and one-third (1/3) of the free portion to Mrs. Angela M. Butte. Proceedings are still pending on account of the claims of creditors which exceed the assets of the deceased. 

Bank of the Philippine Islands became the judicial administrator.

On December 9, 1958, one of the co-owners of the said property, Marie Garnier Vda. de Ramirez, sold her 1/6 share to Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc.for P500,000.00. 

Notices of sale were sent to possible redemptioners, including Butte, and the sale was registered.

On January 15, 1959, Butte attempted to redeem the sold share by offering payment, which was refused. Butte consigned the payment in court and filed an action for legal redemption and damages.

Lower Court: 

The court dismissed Mrs. Butte's complaint, stating she had no right to redeem beyond the statutory 30-day period for legal redemptions provided by the Civil Code. 

Nature: 

Appeal from decision of CFI-Manila

Issues:

(1) WoN Mrs. Butte can exercise the right of legal redemption over the 1/6 share sold, despite the presence of the judicial administrator and pending the final distribution of her share in the testate proceedings; (YES) 

(2) WoN Mrs. Butte exercised the right of legal redemption within the period prescribed by law. (YES)

Held:

Judgment reversed and set aside.

(1) Mrs. Angela M. Butte is entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption as testamentary heir of the estate of J.V. Ramirez. She and her co-heirs acquired an interest in the undivided one-sixth (1/6) share from the moment of the death of the aforesaid co-owner.

By law, the rights to the succession of a deceased persons are transmitted to his heirs from the moment of his death, and the right of succession includes all property rights and obligations that survive the decedent.

As a consequence of this fundamental rule of succession, the heirs of Jose V. Ramirez acquired his undivided share in the property from the moment of his death, and from that instant, they became co-owners in the aforesaid property, together with the original surviving co-owners of their decedent. 

A co-owner of an undivided share is necessarily a co-owner of the whole. 

Wherefore, any one of the Ramirez heirs, as such co-owner, became entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption (retracto de comuneros) as soon as another co-owner (Maria Garnier Vda. de Ramirez) had sold her undivided share to a stranger, Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. This right of redemption vested exclusively in consideration of the redemptioner's share which the law nowhere takes into account.

The situation is in no wise altered by the existence of a judicial administrator of the estate. The administrator has the right to the possession of the real and personal estate of the deceased, so far as needed for the payment of the decedent's debts and the expenses of administration, and the administrator may bring or defend actions for the recovery or protection of the property or rights of the deceased, but such rights of possession and administration do not include the right of legal redemption of the undivided share sold to Uy & Company by Mrs. Garnier Ramirez. 

The reason is obvious: this right of legal redemption only came into existence when the sale to Uy & Sons, Inc. was perfected, eight (8) years after the death of Jose V. Ramirez, and formed no part of his estate. The redemption right vested in the heirs originally, in their individual capacity, they did not derivatively acquire it from their decedent, for when Jose V. Ramirez died, none of the other co-owners of the Sta. Cruz property had as yet sold his undivided share to a stranger. Hence, there was nothing to redeem and no right of redemption; and if the late Ramirez had no such right at his death, he could not transmit it to his own heirs. Much less could Ramirez acquire such right of redemption eight years after his death, when the sale to Uy & Sons, Inc. was made; because death extinguishes civil personality, and, therefore, all further juridical capacity to acquire or transmit rights and obligations of any kind.

All that the law requires is that the legal redemptioner should be a co-owner at the time the undivided share of another co-owner is sold to a stranger. Whether or not the redemptioner will continue being a co-owner after exercising the legal redemptioner is irrelevant for the purposes of law.

Nor it can be argued that if the original share of Ramirez is sold by the administrator, his heirs would stand in law as never having acquired that share. This would only be true if the inheritance is repudiated or the heir's quality as such is voided. But where the heirship is undisputed, the purchaser of hereditary property is not deemed to have acquired the title directly from the deceased Ramirez, because a dead man can not convey title, nor from the administrator who owns no part of the estate; the purchaser can only derive his title from the Ramirez heirs, represented by the administrator, as their trustee or legal representative.

(2) This period, be it noted, is peremptory, because the policy of the law is not to leave the purchaser's title in uncertainty beyond the established 30-day period. In considering whether or not the offer to redeem was timely, the notice given by the vendee (buyer) should not be taken into account. The text of Article 1623 clearly and expressly prescribes that the thirty days for making the redemption are to be counted from notice in writing by the vendor.

The reasons for requiring that the notice should be given by the seller, and not by the buyer, are easily divined. The seller of an undivided interest is in the best position to know who are his co-owners that under the law must be notified of the sale. Also, the notice by the seller removes all doubts as to the fact of the sale, its perfection; and its validity, the notice being a reaffirmation thereof, so that the party need not entertain doubt that the seller may still contest the alienation. This assurance would not exist if the notice should be given by the buyer.

On December 11, 1958, Mrs. Chambers, in her capacity as attorney-in-fact of the vendor Marie Garnier Vda. de Ramirez, wrote the Administrator Bank of the Philippine Islands that her principal's one-sixth (1/6) share in the Sta. Cruz property had been sold to Manuel Uy & Sons.

On December 15, 1958, the Bank received this notice, and on the same day endorsed it to Mrs. Butte, care of Delgado, Flores and Macapagal (her attorneys).

On December 16, 1958, Mrs. Butte received the same.

On January 15, 1959, Mrs. Butte tendered redemption and upon the vendee's refusal, judicially consigned the price of P500,000.00.

The latter date was the last one of the thirty days allowed by the Code for the redemption, counted by excluding December 16, 1958 and including January 15, 1959, pursuant to Article 13 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the redemption was made in due time.

The date of receipt of the vendor's notice by the Administrator Bank (December 15) can not be counted as determining the start of thirty days; for the Administrator of the estate was not a proper redemptioner, since, as previously shown, the right to redeem the share of Marie Garnier did not form part of the estate of Jose V. Ramirez.