10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

VOL. 172, APRIL 17, 1989 201

Garcia vs. Calaliman
*
G.R. No. 26855. April 17, 1989.

FRANCISCO GARCIA, PAZ GARCIA, and MARIA

GARCIA, petitioners, vs. JOSE CALALIMAN, PACIENCIA
TRABADILLO, & HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Third
Division, respondents.

Civil Law; Wills and Succession; Partition and Distribution of

Estate; Sale of Hereditary Rights Before Partition; Legal
Redemption; The written notice required under Art. 1088 of the
Civil Code for purposes of legal redemption is indispensable.
The issue has been squarely settled in the case of Castillo v.
Samonte, where this Court observed: Both the letter and spirit of
the new Civil Code argue against any attempt to widen the scope
of the notice specified in Article 1088 by including therein any
other kind of notice, such as verbal or by registration. If the
intention of the law had been to include verbal notice or any other
means of information as sufficient to give the effect of this notice,
then there would have been no necessity or reasons to specify in
Article 1088 of the New Civil Code that the said notice be made in
writing for, under the old law, a verbal notice or information was
sufficient (106 Phil. 1023 [1960]). In the abovequoted decision
the Court did not consider the registration of the deed of sale with
the Register of Deeds sufficient notice, most specially because the
property involved was unregistered land, as in the instant case.
The Court took note of the fact that the registration of the deed of
sale as sufficient notice of a sale under the provision of Section 51
of Act No. 496 applies only to registered lands and has no
application whatsoever to a case where the property involved is,
admittedly, unregistered land. Consistent with aforesaid ruling,
in the interpretation of a related provision (Article 1623 of the
New Civil Code) this Court had stressed that written notice is
indispen

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 1/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

202

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Calaliman

sable, actual knowledge of the sale acquired in some other

manner by the redemptioner, notwithstanding. He or she is still
entitled to written notice, as exacted by the Code, to remove all
uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and its validity, and to quiet
any doubt that the alienation is not definitive. The law not having
provided for any alternative, the method of notifications remains
exclusive, though the Code does not prescribe any particular form
of written notice nor any distinctive method for written
notification of redemption (Conejero et al. v. Court of Appeals et
al. 16 SCRA 775 [1966]; Etcuban v. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA
507 [1987]; Cabrera v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 75069, April 15,
1988).
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; In the absence
of a written notification of the sale by the vendors, the 30day
period provided in Art. 1088 has not even begun to run.
Petitioners fault the appellate court in not awarding them
damages, attorneys fees and costs. After finding in favor of
respondent spouses and against petitioners herein it is untenable
for petitioners to expect that the appellate court would award
damages and attorneys fees and costs. However as already
discussed, petitioners have not lost their right to redeem, for in
the absence of a written notification of the sale by the vendors,
the 30day period has not even begun to run. Petitioners clearly
can claim attorneys fees for bad faith on the part of respondents,
first, for refusing redemption, and secondly for declaring the
entire land as theirs, although they knew some heirs had not sold
their shares.

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court

of Appeals. Concepcion, Jr., J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Jose Gaton for petitioners.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 2/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

Ricardo Q. Castro for respondents.

PARAS, J.:
**
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. No. 22179R, promulgated
on

__________________

** Penned by then Associate Justice Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr., and

concurred in by Justices Juan P. Enriquez and Edilberto Soriano.

203

VOL. 172, APRIL 17, 1989 203

Garcia vs. Calaliman

August 31, 1966, reversing***

the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo in Civil Case No. 3489, and
rendering a new one dismissing the complaint of petitioner
herein, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed

and another entered, dismissing plaintiffs complaint. No
pronouncement as to costs. (p. 29 Rollo)

The facts of the case are as follows:

On February 11, 1946, one Gelacio Garcia died intestate,
leaving a parcel of unregistered land about 372 sq. meters,
situated in the Municipality of Tubungan, Province of Iloilo
(Exhibits, p. 19). On his death the property was inherited
by his nephews, nieces, grandnephews who are the
descendants of his late brothers, Pedro, Simeon,
Buenaventura and Marcos (TSN, Sept. 6, 1956, p. 3).
On December 3, 1954, the heirs, Juanita Bertomo,
Joaquin Garcia, Porfirio Garcia, Dioscoro Garcia, Flora
Garcia, Consolacion Garcia, Remedios Garcia, Trinidad
Garcia, Baltazar Garcia signed a document entitled,
Extrajudicial Partition and Deed of Sale (Exhibits, p. 19).
The parcel of land subject of the document was described as
follows:

A parcel of residential land, about 372 square meters, 1st class,

identified as Assessors Lot No. 107, Block No. 8, bounded on the
north by Paz and Federal Streets; on the south by Tabaosares and

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 3/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

Antonia Tacalinar; on the East by Piedad Street; and on the West

by Paz Street. This parcel of land has no concrete monuments to
indicate its boundaries but there are dikes, stones and temporary
fences used as landmarks and boundary signals. This parcel of
land is covered by Tax Declaration No. 1149, S. of 1947, in the
name of Gelacio Garcia, and its assessed value of P110.00. (p. 19,
Exhibits)

The last paragraph of the same document states:

That for and in consideration of the sum of FIVE HUNDRED

PESOS (P500.00), Philippine Currency, to us in hand paid by the

_________________

*** CFI Judge Roberto Zurbano.

204

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Calaliman

spouses, JOSE CALALIMAN, and PACIENCIA TRABADILLO,

all of legal age, Filipinos and residents of the municipality of
Tubungan, province of Iloilo, Philippines, receipt of which we
hereby aknowledged and confessed to our entire satisfaction, do
by these presents, cede, sell, convey and transfer the above
described parcel of land unto the said spouses, Jose Calaliman
and Paciencia Trabadillo, their heirs, successors and assigns free
from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever. (p. 19, Exhibits)

The document was inscribed in the Register of Deeds of

Iloilo on February 24, 1955, Inscription No. 20814, Page
270, Vol. 64 (Exhibits, p. 20).
On December 17, 1954 another group of heirs, Rosario
Garcia, Margarita Garcia, Dolores Rufino, Resurreccion
Tagarao, Serafin Tagarao, Buenaventura Tagarao,
Fortunata Garcia and Simeon Garcia, all residents of
Isabela, Negros Occidental, also sold to the spouses Jose
Calaliman and Paciencia Trabadillo through their
attorneyinfact, Juanito Bertomo, their shares, rights,
interest and participation in the same parcel of land. The
Deed of Sale was registered in the Register of Deeds of
Iloilo also on December 22, 1954, Inscription No. 20640, p.
88, Vol. 64 (Exhibits, p. 2122).
On May 7, 1955 the heirs Francisco Garcia, Paz Garcia,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 4/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

and Maria Garcia, petitioners herein, filed against the

spouses Jose Calaliman and Paciencia Trabadillo, private
respondents herein, Civil Case No. 3489 with the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo, for legal redemption of the 3/4
portion of the parcel of land inherited by the heirs from the
late Gelacio Garcia, which portion was sold by their co
heirs to the defendants. In the complaint (Record on
Appeal, p. 4) plaintiffs alleged, among others:

5. That, plaintiffs coowners had never offered for

sale their interest and shares over the said land to
the plaintiffs prior to the sale in favor of the
defendants, nor given notice of such intention on
their part; and that, no notice in writing has been
given by said coowners to the plaintiffs of the said
sale, such that, plaintiffs came to learn of it only
from other source;
6. That, plaintiffs would have purchased the
interest and shares of their coowners had the latter
offered the same to them

205

VOL. 172, APRIL 17, 1989 205

Garcia vs. Calaliman

prior to the sale thereof to the defendants; and that,

within 30 days after learning of the sale made to
the defendants under annexes A, B and B1,
plaintiffs made repeated offer to the defendants to
allow them to redeem said interest and shares
acquired by the defendants in accordance with the
right granted to the plaintiffs by law in such a case,
offering a reasonable price thereof of P300 taking
into consideration the fact that the defendants had
acquired only 3/4 of the land of 372 square meters
more or less, in area with assessed value of P110
and a fair market value of 372 at P1 per square
meter, the price actually obtaining in the locality at
the time of the sale thereof under Annexes A, B
and B1; however, the defendants refused and have
until the present refused to grant redemption
thereof giving no reason why other than
challenging the plaintiffs to bring their case in

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 5/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

court:
7. That, the circumstances surrounding the
transaction between the defendants and plaintiffs
coowners, the vendors, were such that defendants
could not have actually paid nor the vendors
actually received the total price of P800 as
stipulated in the deeds Annexes A, B and B1,
while the said price fixed is grossly excessive and
highly exaggerated and prohibitive for evidently
ulterior motive:
8. That, the land herein described is an ancestral
property and plaintiffs have actually a house
standing thereon and having lived thereon ever
since, such that, the defendants refusal to allow
redemption thereof has caused the plaintiffs mental
torture, worry and anxiety, forcing them to litigate
and retain services of counsel, therefore, plaintiffs
demand against the defendants P500 for moral
damage, P500 for exemplary damage, P300 for
attorneys fees, aside from actual expenses
incurred; and, furthermore, P5 monthly as
reasonable value of defendants occupation of a
portion of the premises counting from the filing of
this complaint.

They prayed that the trial court render judgment:

1 .Declaring the plaintiffs to be entitled to redeem

from the defendants for the price of P300 or for
such reasonable price as may be determined by this
Honorable Court the interest and shares over the
land described in this complaint of plaintiffs co
owners, Joaquin, Porfirio, Flora, Dioscoro,
Consolacion, Remedios, Trinidad, Baltazar, Rosario,
Margarita, Dolores, Fortunata and Simon, all
surnamed Garcia, and Resurreccion, Serafin and
Buenaventura, all surnamed Tagarao, sold by them
to the defendants under the deeds of sale

206

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Calaliman

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 6/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

Annexes A, B and B1 of this complaint; and

ordering the defendants to execute the proper
instrument of reconveyance or redemption thereof
in favor of the plaintiffs; and, ordering them to
vacate the premises;
2. Condemning the defendants to pay to the
plaintiffs P500 for moral damage; P500 for
exemplary damage; P300 for attorneys fees and
actual expenses incurred; P5 monthly from the
filing of this complaint as reasonable value of
defendants occupation of a portion of the land; the
costs of this action; and, for such other relief and
remedy as may be legal, just and equitable.

On the other hand, the defendants, private respondents

herein, alleged in their answer the following special
affirmative defenses (Record on Appeal, p. 14):

1. That plaintiffs have no cause of action against

the herein defendants;
2. That due notices in writing have been sent to
plaintiff Francisco Garcia at his residence at 2875
Felix Huertas St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, sometime last
June 1953, in which plaintiff Francisco Garcia was
informed of his coowners signified intention to sell
their shares, and likewise, the other plaintiffs Paz
and Maria Garcia were personally notified of the
same hence, for that reason, they are now barred to
claim legal redemption of the land in question,
having filed their belated claim too late.

The trial court rendered judgment on September 12, 1957

in favor of the plaintiffs (Record on Appeal, p. 15), the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

(a) Sentencing the defendants to resell the property to the

plaintiffs for P800.00 which is the total consideration of
the two deeds of sale Exhibits A and B;
(b) In the event that the defendants fail to execute the deed of
resale within ten days from the date this decision becomes
final, the Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to execute the
corresponding deed pursuant to the provisions of Section
10 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court;
(c) Without pronouncement as to costs.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 7/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

207

VOL. 172, APRIL 17, 1989 207

Garcia vs. Calaliman

On October 14, 1957 plaintiffs filed their notice of Appeal

predicated on (a) failure of the Court to adjudge the real or
reasonable price of the sale or otherwise the redemption
value thereof; (b) failure of the Court to adjudge damages
including attorneys fees in favor of the plaintiffs and the
costs. (Record on Appeal, p. 18).
Defendants filed their own notice of appeal on October
15, 1957 (Record on Appeal, p. 19).
On appeal the Court of Appeals in a decision
promulgated on August 31, 1966 reversed the decision of
the trial court and rendered another one dismissing
plaintiffs complaint with no pronouncement as to costs
(Rollo, p. 22).
The instant petition for review by certiorari was filed
with the Court on December 12, 1966 (Rollo, p. 11). The
Court at first dismissed the petition in a resolution dated
December 22, 1966, for insufficient supporting papers
(Rollo, p. 35) but reconsidered the said Resolution of
Dismissal later in a Resolution dated February 8, 1967
(Rollo, p. 97) as prayed for in a motion for reconsideration
filed by petitioners on February 1, 1967 (Rollo, p. 38). The
same Resolution of February 8, 1967 gave due course to the
petition.
The Brief for the Petitioners was filed on June 9, 1967
(Rollo, p. 106); the Brief for the Respondents was received
in the Court on August 31, 1967 (Rollo, p. 119).
Petitioners having manifested they would not file reply
brief on September 14, 1967 (Rollo, p. 122) the Court
considered the case submitted for decision, in a Resolution
dated September 21, 1967 (Rollo, p. 124).
Petitioners assign the following errors:

I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED

IN DECLARING THAT THE 30DAY PERIOD
PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 1088 OF THE NEW
CIVIL CODE FOR A COHEIR TO EXERCISE HIS
RIGHT OF LEGAL REDEMPTION, HAD
ALREADY ELAPSED WHEN THE HEREIN
PLAINTIFFS FILED THE ACTION ON MAY 7,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 8/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

1955.
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NO OFFER
TO REIMBURSE THE DEFENDANTS FOR THE
PORTION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION SOLD
TO THEM BY THE COHEIRS OF THE
PLAINTIFFS.

208

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Calaliman

III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED

IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE
LOWER COURT, AND IN NOT ADJUDGING
DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS IN
FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS.
(Brief for the Petitioners, p. 1)

There is no question that the provision of law applicable in

the instant case is Art. 1088 of the New Civil Code (Art.
1067, Old Civil Code) as the matter concerns heirs and
inheritance not yet distributed (Wenceslao v. Calimon, 46
Phil. 906 [1923]). Art. 1088 states:

Article 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to
a stranger before the partition, any or all of the coheirs may be
subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for
the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one
month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by
the vendor. The main issue is whether or not petitioners took all
the necessary steps to effectuate their exercise of the right of legal
redemption within the period fixed by Art. 1088 of the Civil Code.

It is undisputed that no notification in writing was ever

received by petitioners about the sale of the hereditary
interest of some of their coheirs in the parcel of land they
inherited from the late Gelacio Garcia, although in a letter
dated June 23, 1953 petitioner Francisco Garcia wrote one
of his coheirs, Joaquin Garcia, who is an uncle of
petitioners, proposing to buy the hereditary interests of his
coheirs in their unpartitioned inheritance, (Exhibit, p. 3).
Although said petitioner asked that his letter be answered
in order that I will know the results of what I have
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 9/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

requested you, (Exhibit, p. 14) there is no proof that he

was favored with one.
Petitioners came to know that their coheirs were selling
the property on December 3, 1954 when one of the heirs,
Juanito Bertomo, asked Petitioner Paz Garcia to sign a
document prepared in the Municipality of Tubungan
because the land they inherited was going to be sold to
private respondent, Jose Calaliman (TSN, September 6,
1957, p. 60). The document mentioned by petitioner Paz
Garcia could be no other than the
209

VOL. 172, APRIL 17, 1989 209

Garcia vs. Calaliman

one entitled ExtraJudicial Partition and Deed of Sale

dated December 3, 1954 as it is in this document that the
name of Paz Garcia, Maria Garcia and Amado Garcia
appear unsigned by them (Exhibits, p. 19).
It is not known whether the other heirs whose names
appear in the document had already signed the document
at the time Paz Garcia was approached by Juanito
Bertomo. Paz Garcia, however, testified that she
immediately informed her brother Francisco that Juanita
Bertomo wanted to sell the land to Jose Calaliman (TSN,
September 6, 1957, p. 62). On December 26, 1954 he wrote
respondents giving them notice of his desire to exercise the
right of legal redemption and that he will resort to court
action if denied the right (Exhibits, p. 8). The respondents
received the letter on January 13, 1955 but petitioner
Francisco Garcia did not get any answer from them.
Neither did respondents show him a copy of the document
of sale nor inform him about the price they paid for the sale
when he went home to Tubungan from Manila sometime in
March 1955 and went to see the respondent spouse about
the matter on March 24, 1955 (TSN, September 6, 1957, p.
18).
Because of the refusal of respondent Jose Calaliman to
show him the document of sale or reveal to him the price
paid for the parcel of land, petitioner Francisco Garcia
went to the Office of the Register of Deeds on the same
date, March 24, 1955 and there found two documents of
sale regarding the same parcel of land (TSN, Ibid, p. 19).
Petitioners filed the case for legal redemption with the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 10/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

trial court on May 7, 1955. Respondents claim that the 30

day period prescribed in Article 1088 of the New Civil Code
for petitioners to exercise the right to legal redemption had
already elapsed at that time and that the requirement of
Article 1088 of the New Civil Code that notice must be in
writing is deemed satisfied because written notice would be
superfluous, the purpose of the law having been fully
served when petitioner Francisco Garcia went to the Office
of the Register of Deeds and saw for himself, read and
understood the contents of the deeds of sale (Brief for
respondents, p. 6).
The issue has been squarely settled in the case of
Castillo v. Samonte, where this Court observed:
210

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Calaliman

Both the letter and spirit of the new Civil Code argue against
any attempt to widen the scope of the notice specified in Article
1088 by including therein any other kind of notice, such as verbal
or by registration. If the intention of the law had been to include
verbal notice or any other means of information as sufficient to
give the effect of this notice, then there would have been no
necessity or reasons to specify in Article 1088 of the New Civil
Code that the said notice be made in writing for, under the old
law, a verbal notice or information was sufficient (106 Phil. 1023
[1960]).

In the abovequoted decision the Court did not consider the

registration of the deed of sale with the Register of Deeds
sufficient notice, most specially because the property
involved was unregistered land, as in the instant case. The
Court took note of the fact that the registration of the deed
of sale as sufficient notice of a sale under the provision of
Section 51 of Act No. 496 applies only to registered lands
and has no application whatsoever to a case where the
property involved is, admittedly, unregistered land.
Consistent with aforesaid ruling, in the interpretation of
a related provision (Article 1623 of the New Civil Code) this
Court had stressed that written notice is indispensable,
actual knowledge of the sale acquired in some other
manners by the redemptioner, notwithstanding. He or she
is still entitled to written notice, as exacted by the Code, to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 11/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and its

validity, and to quiet any doubt that the alienation is not
definitive. The law not having provided for any alternative,
the method of notifications remains exclusive, though the
Code does not prescribe any particular form of written
notice nor any distinctive method for written notification of
redemption (Conejero et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., 16
SCRA 775 [1966]; Etcuban v. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA
507 [1987]; Cabrera v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 75069, April
15, 1988).
Petitioners fault the appellate court in not awarding
them damages, attorneys fees and costs. After finding in
favor of respondent spouses and against petitioners herein
it is untenable for petitioners to expect that the appellate
court would award damages and attorneys fees and costs.
However as already discussed, petitioners have not lost
their right to re
211

VOL. 172, APRIL 17, 1989 211

Lim vs. Jabalde

deem, for in the absence of a written notification of the sale

by the vendors, the 30day period has not even begun to
run. Petitioners clearly can claim attorneys fees for bad
faith on the part of respondents, first, for refusing
redemption, and secondly for declaring the entire land as
theirs, although they knew some heirs had not sold their
shares.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of
Appeals is REVERSED and the decision of the trial court is
REINSTATED with the modification that petitioners be
awarded damages, attorneys fees and costs in the amount
prayed for.
SO ORDERED.

MelencioHerrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento

and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Decision reversed.

Note.No legal redemption on the sale of property for

payment of debts of a deceased person. Art. 1088 does not
justify legal redemption, as it refers to sale of hereditary

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 12/13
10/22/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 172

rights, not to specific properties, for payment of debts of

decedents estate. (Plan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
135 SCRA 270.)

o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001508b5133ea4fb885af000a0094004f00ee/p/AKC966/?username=Guest 13/13