Doromal vs CA 66 SCRA 575 (1975) BARREDO, J.: FACTS: y Lot 3504 of the cadastral survey of Iloilo, situated in the poblacion of La Paz, one of its districts, with an area of a little more than 2-1/2 hectares was originally decreed in the name of the late Justice Antonio Horilleno, in 1916, under Original Certificate of Title No. 1314, Exh. A y but before he died, he executed a last will and testament attesting to the fact that it was a co-ownership between himself and his brothers and sisters, y the co-owners were: beside 1. Justice Horilleno (daughter Mary as heir), 2. Luis,3. Soledad, 4. Fe, 5. Rosita, 6. Carlos and 7. Esperanza,' all surnamed Horilleno, and since Esperanza had already died, she was succeeded by her only daughter and heir herein plaintiff, Filomena Javellana, in the proportion of 1/7 undivided ownership each; y even though their right had not as yet been annotated in the title, the co-owners led by Carlos, had wanted to sell their shares, or if possible if plaintiff Filomena Javellana were agreeable, wanted to sell the entire property, and they hired an acquaintance Cresencia Harder, to look for buyers, and the latter came to interest defendants, the father and son, named Ramon Doromal, Sr. and Jr., and y in preparation for the execution of the sale, since the brothers and sisters Horilleno were scattered in various parts of the country, 1. Carlos in Ilocos Sur, 2. Mary in Baguio, 3. Soledad and 4. Fe, in Mandaluyong, Rizal, and 5. Rosita in Basilan City, they all executed various powers of attorney in favor of their niece, Mary H. Jimenez y they also caused preparation of a power of attorney of identical tenor for signature by plaintiff, Filomena Javellana, and sent it with a letter of Carlos, dated 18 January, 1968 y Carlos informed Filomina that the price was P4.00 a square meter,-although it now turns out according to Exh. 3 that as early as 22 October, 1967, Carlos had received in check as earnest money from defendant Ramon Doromal, Jr., the sum of P5,000.00 and the price therein agreed upon was five (P5.00) pesos a square meter y in another letter also of Carlos to Plaintiff Filomina in 5 November, 1967, Exh. 6, he had told her that the Doromals had given the earnest money of P5,000.00 at P6.00 a square meter y At any rate, Plaintiff Filomina not being agreeable, did not sign the power of attorney, and the rest of the co-owners went ahead with their sale of their 6/7, Carlos first seeing to it that the deed of sale by their common attorney in fact, Mary H. Jimenez be signed and ratified as it was signed and ratified in Candon, Ilocos Sur, on 15 January, 1968, Exh; 2, then brought to Iloilo by Carlos in the same month, y and because the Register of Deeds of Iloilo refused to register right away, since the original registered owner, Justice Antonio Horilleno was already dead, Carlos had to ask as he did, hire Atty. Teotimo Arandela to file a petition within the cadastral case, on 26 February, 1968, for the purpose, after which Carlos returned to Luzon, and after compliance with the requisites of publication, hearing and notice, the petition was approved, y on 29 April, 1968, Carlos already back in Iloilo went to the Register of Deeds and caused the registration of the order of the cadastral court approving the issuance of a new title in the name of the co-owners, as well as of the deed of sale to the Doromals, y as a result of which on that same date, a new title was issued TCT No. 23152, in the name of the Horillenos to 6/7 and plaintiff Filomena Javellana to 1/7, y the Doromals paid unto Carlos by check, the sum of P97,000,00 of Chartered Bank which was later substituted by check of Phil. National Bank, because there was no Chartered Bank Branch in Ilocos Sur, 000 in cash which will be delivered as soon as the contract of sale is executed in favor of Filomena. of the actual execution and registration of the corresponding deed of sale. least of all. there must be presented to him. neither of said letters referred to a consummated sale It cannot be said that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the letters aforementioned sufficed to comply with the requirement of notice of a sale by co-owners under Article 1623 of the Civil Code. in writing". Exhibit 6.000. This is implied from the latter portion of Article 1623 which requires that before a register of deeds can record a sale by a co-owner. and refused the next day.00 trial judge : plaintiff had no more right. the Doromals were aghast. 11 June. But to start with. There is No showing that Filomena was notified. 1967. there is no showing that said letters were in fact received by respondent Filomena and when they were actually received. 1968. 1968. We are of the considered opinion and so hold that for purposes of the co-owner's right of redemption granted by Article 1620 of the Civil Code. Iloilo.00 a square meter and thus was consummated the transaction. petitioners do not pinpoint which of these two letters. their dates being more than two months apart. 1968 delivered to petitioners on even date.' Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and held that although respondent Filomena Javellana was informed of her coowners' Proposal to sell the land in question to petitioners she was. an affidavit to the effect that the notice of the sale had been sent in writing to the other co-owners. thru oral and documentary proofs.00 but defendants Sps Doromals in answer. hence. said respondent's right to redeem had not yet expired at the time she made her offer for that purpose thru her letter of June 10. the Doromals according to their evidence still paid an additional amount in cash of P18. The intermediate court further held that the redemption price to be paid by respondent should be that stated in the deed of sale which is P30. and in their evidence.250.00 since the agreed price was P5. and that if ever she should have. . Exhibit 7. ISSUE: WON Filomena s right to redeem had expired? HELD: NO. and in the trial. "never notified.y y y y but besides this amount paid in check. and November 5. Arturo H. however. that it should be at the true and real price paid by them which amounts to P115. A sale may not be presented to the register of deeds for registration unless it be in the form of a duly executed public instrument. oral and documentary sought to show that plaintiff had no more right to redeem. making a formal offer to repurchase or redeem the 6/7 undivided share in Lot 3504 for P30.250. sought to show that as co-owner. as found by the appellate court. On 10 June. the notice in writing which Article 1623 requires to be made to the other co-owners and from receipt of which the 30-day period to redeem should be counted is a notice not only of a perfected sale but of the actual execution and delivery of the deed of sale. plaintiff Filomena filed this case. Villanueva. because 'Plaintiff was informed of the intended sale of the 6/7 share belonging to the Horillenos.000 notwithstanding that the preponderance of the evidence proves that the actual price paid by petitioners was P115. is the required notice. Besides. plaintiff Filomena s lawyer. In any event. 1968. constituted the required notice in writing from which the 30-day day period fixed in said provision should be computed. to redeem. she had the right to redeem at the price stated in the deed of sale of P30.250. Atty. bringing with him her letter of that date. The letters sent by Carlos Horilleno to respondent and dated January 18.. there came to the residence of the Doromals in Dumangas.. it cannot be said definitely that such a sale had even been actually perfected. The thrust of their first assignment of error is that for purposes of Article 1623 of the Civil Code which provides that: "ART. it appearing she has never been shown a copy thereof through a written communication by either any of the petitionerspurchasers or any of her co-owners-vendees.) y y other issue: REDEMPTION PRICE from the decision of the Court of Appeals.00 because another amount in cash of P18. considering that it is not clear that there was already a definite agreement as to the price then and that petitioners were decided to buy 6/7 only of the property should respondent Javellana refuse to agree to part with her 1/7 share. We gather that there is "decisive preponderance of evidence" establishing "that the price paid by defendants was not that stated in the document.000 but much more. 1968 was well within the period prescribed by law. and to avoid any controversy as to the terms and conditions under which the right to redeem may be exercised. The fact alone that in the later letter of January 18. 1968 the price indicated was P4. Article 1619 of the Civil Code bestows unto a co-owner the right to redeem and "to be subrogated under the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract". as signifying perfection of the sale. Viewed in the backdrop of the factual milieu thereof extant in the record. that is. Exhibit 2.250 was paid afterwards. And it being beyond dispute that respondent herein has never been notified in writing of the execution of the deed of sale by which petitioners acquired the subject property. unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners. of P30. While P5. the law prefers that all the terms and conditions of the sale should be definite and in writing. it is beat that the period therefor should not be deemed to have commenced unless the notice of the disposition is made after the formal deed of disposal has been duly executed." .250.000 might have indeed been paid to Carlos in October. 1967. invoked by petitioner. as the case may be. 16 SCRA 775. as a guarantee that the buyer would not back out. she being admittedly a 1/7 co-owner of the property in dispute.RATIO: Petitioners do not question respondent's right to redeem. (Cornejo et al.00 per square meter while in that of November 5.. CA et al. at least P97.000 were paid in the concept of earnest money as the term was understood under the Old Civil Code. vs. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor. what was stated was P5.00 per square meter negatives the possibility that a "price definite" had already been agreed upon." y while the letters relied upon by petitioners could convey the idea that more or less some kind of consensus had been arrived at among the other Homeowners to sell the property in dispute to petitioners. As aptly observed by Justice Gatmaitan in the decision under review. according to the check if not a total of P115. We are more inclined to believe that the said P5.000. there is nothing to show that the same was in the concept of the earnest money contemplated in Article 1482 of the Civil Code. 1967. or by the vendor. Indeed. it necessarily follows that her tender to redeem the same made on June 10. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property. it is immaterial when she might have actually come to know about said deed. 1623. The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners. with costs against Petitioners.the contention of petitioners here that considering said finding of fact of the intermediate court. as We here hold. . the trial court fell short of its devotion and loyalty to the Republic in officially giving its stamp of approval to the stand of petitioners and even berating respondent Javellana as wanting to enrich herself "at the expense of her own blood relatives who are her aunts. Dispositive: WHEREFORE the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. it is impossible for the Supreme Court to sanction petitioners' pragmatic but immoral posture. the seemingly wide practice of understating considerations of transactions for the purpose of evading taxes and fees due to the government must be condemned and all parties guilty thereof must be made to suffer the consequences of their ill-advised agreement to defraud the state." On the contrary. the Court of Appeals was also eminently correct in its considerations supporting the conclusion that the redemption in controversy should be only for the price stipulated in the deed. Verily. Their situation is similar to that of parties to an illegal contract. that they are in pari-delicto with petitioners in committing tax evasion and should not receive any consideration from any court in respect to the money paid for the sale in dispute. petitioners' contention cannot be sustained. Being patently violative of public policy and injurious to public interest. said "blood relatives" should have been sternly told. it erred in holding nevertheless that "the redemption price should be that stated in the deed of sale. uncles and cousins." Again. Of course. regardless of what might have been actually paid by petitioners.