THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 185391. February 3, 2016.]
REYNALDO A. NIDOY, SR., complainant, vs. SPOUSES ROLANDO HIPOLITO AND LITA HIPOLITO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 3, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 185391 (Reynaldo A. Nidoy, Sr. vs. Spouses Rolando Hipolito and Lita Hipolito). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated September 30, 2008 and Resolution 2 dated November 14, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 104021, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated June 12, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agoo, La Union, Branch 32, in Civil Case No. A-2509, regarding the dismissal of the complaint for legal redemption with tender and consignation of payment filed by Reynaldo A. Nidoy, Sr. (Reynaldo) against Spouses Rolando and Lita Hipolito (Spouses Hipolito). The said RTC ruling reversed the Decision 4 dated July 30, 2007 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Agoo, La Union, in Civil Case No. 1158, which granted Reynaldo's complaint.
An ancestral land located in Agoo, La Union was owned by Spouses Roberto and Luisa Nidoy (Spouses Nidoy) which was partitioned into lots among their five (5) children, namely: Arsenia — Lot No. 524, Victorino — Lot No. 525, Dominga — Lot No. 526, Marcelina — Lot No. 527 and Monica — Lot No. 528. Each lot was separately declared for taxation purposes by the owner-heir. 5 Reynaldo is the legal heir of Victorino who inherited Lot No. 525. Lot No. 525 adjoins Lot No. 524 belonging to Arsenia in the east. 6
When Arsenia was still living, Reynaldo and his family constructed a well and jetmatic pump on Lot No. 524 where they drew water for their own use. On March 2, 2000, Arsenia died without a child. 7
On April 10, 2006, Reynaldo made a verification in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer in Agoo, La Union and discovered a Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 17, 2002 of Lot No. 524 wherein Arsenia's imprinted thumb mark appeared. 8 Reynaldo assailed the validity of the sale in favor of Spouses Hipolito because, according to him, Arsenia was seriously sick at that time and that, as a co-owner of Lot No. 524, he should have been given a written notice of the sale. 9 Reynaldo sent a letter to Spouses Hipolito regarding his intention to exercise his right of legal redemption coupled with a tender of payment of the amount of P10,000.00. Spouses Hipolito's refusal prompted Reynaldo to consign the P10,000.00 in the Rural Bank of Agoo in their name and for their account under Bank Account No. 51-178994 with due notice and right to withdraw it. 10 Reynaldo filed a Complaint 11 for legal redemption with tender and consignation of payment against Spouses Hipolito before the MTC of Agoo, La Union which was docketed as Civil Case No. 1158.
Ruling of the MTC
On July 30, 2007, the MTC of Agoo, La Union rendered a Decision 12 granting the complaint by stating among others: (i) that, based on Article 1621, paragraph 3 13 of the New Civil Code Reynaldo is considered a preferred redemptioner of Lot No. 524; (ii) that he is a co-owner of Lot No. 524 by operation of law due to the right of easement and consent or implied oral donation inter vivos of Arsenia; (iii) that he is an intestate co-heir together with the other nephews of Arsenia; (iv) that the defenses of Spouses Hipolito were mere hearsay because no neutral witnesses or physical evidence were presented to support it; and (v) that the 30-day period to exercise the right of redemption was seasonably made by Reynaldo on April 10, 2006 when he discovered the Deed of Sale in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Agoo, La Union contrary to Spouses Hipolito's claim that it should commence from the date of execution of the Deed of Sale. 14 The fallo of the decision, thus, reads: SaCIDT
NOW THEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered in favor of [Reynaldo] against [Spouses Hipolito], as follows:
1. Ordering [Spouses Hipolito] to execute a Deed of Sale in favor of [Reynaldo] over that Lot No. 524 as described in Exhibit 1 and for and in consideration of the same amount of P10,000.00 which was consigned in [Spouses Hipolito's] name and under account No. 51-178994, on records of the Rural Bank of Agoo, La Union;
2. Ordering [Spouses Hipolito] to pay jointly and severally to [Reynaldo], the total amount of P50,000.00 as representing moral and exemplary damages, in view of the deduction of the reasonable necessary expenses in the execution of the deed of sale and useful improvements over the property subject of the instant case at bar by [Spouses Hipolito].
3. Ordering [Spouses Hipolito] to pay the cost of litigation as maybe computed by the Clerk of Court.
SO ORDERED. 15
Ruling of the RTC
On appeal, the RTC rendered a Decision dated June 12, 2008 reversing the MTC decision. In its disquisition, the RTC stated that: (a) the co-ownership asserted by Reynaldo among the legal heirs of Spouses Nidoy was terminated when the ancestral property they inherited was subdivided and distributed among them; (b) the beneficial use of Lot No. 524 was merely by tolerance of Arsenia, as admitted by Reynaldo; (c) Reynaldo is also not a co-owner for being a co-heir in the intestate estate of Arsenia and that Lot No. 524 was no longer part of her intestate estate because it was sold prior to her death; (d) Reynaldo is not considered a preferred redemptioner because redemption can only be exercised by any of the legal heirs against a stranger who acquires from any one of such heirs either by sale or donation, in payment, or by any other title for value, a rural estate of the area fixed by law; (e) that he possessed no right of pre-emption or redemption over Lot No. 524 as it was neither alleged in the complaint nor proved that the subject lot was so small for residential purposes than Lot No. 525, or that Lot No. 524 was bought for speculation; and (f) that the requirement of written notice does not apply since Arsenia was an absolute owner of the subject lot. 16 Hence, the appeal was disposed in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court a quo's decision, dated July 30, 2007, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the complaint for legal redemption with tender and consignation of payment filed by [Reynaldo] against [Spouses Hipolito] is dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 17
Ruling of the CA
Feeling aggrieved, Reynaldo elevated the matter to the CA 18 which rendered a Decision 19 on September 30, 2008 affirming the ruling of the RTC.
Foremost, the CA faulted the MTC in taking cognizance of the case for having no jurisdiction over the matter because the enforcement of the right of redemption is a subject matter incapable of pecuniary estimation. The CA further criticized Reynaldo's admission regarding the adjudication of Lot No. 524 to Arsenia which deviated from his claim of co-ownership. At most, he can be considered a mere possessor by tolerance of Arsenia. With respect to the right of way asserted, treating Lot No. 524 as a servient estate in favor of Lot No. 525 still did not make Reynaldo a co-owner of the subject lot. Therefore, as such, he cannot redeem Lot No. 524 from its buyers, Spouses Hipolito under Article 1620 20 of the Civil Code on the basis of his alleged co-ownership since, by his own admissions, no such co-ownership exists between them. 21 Lastly, the right of redemption under Article 1622 of the New Civil Code cannot be applied because the essential elements 22 for its exercise were wanting.
Reynaldo moved for reconsideration 23 but it was denied in the CA's Resolution 24 dated November 14, 2008. cHECAS
Ruling of the Court
The petition is devoid of merit.
"Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact." 25 In the present case, the determination of co-ownership between Reynaldo and Arsenia over Lot No. 524 is a factual issue which would require a review of the probative value of the evidence adduced in the court a quo.
It bears to stress that both the RTC and the CA found that no co-ownership exists between Reynaldo and Arsenia over Lot No. 524. As the CA correctly observed, Reynaldo himself admitted that the subject lot was adjudicated to Arsenia during the partition of the hereditary estate of Spouses Nidoy. Arsenia was the sole owner thereof which disproved the contention of Reynaldo that he is a co-owner thereof. At most, Reynaldo is a mere possessor by tolerance of Arsenia. There is also no co-ownership to consider from the right of way between Lots No. 524 and 525. 26 As the CA correctly pronounced, "one characteristic of an easement is that it is enjoyed over another immovable, never one's own property." 27 Even Reynaldo himself admitted that no such co-ownership exists. Undoubtedly, Reynaldo has no right to redeem the subject lot from Spouses Hipolito who bought it directly from Arsenia.
Reynaldo's right of redemption cannot also be anchored on Article 1622 28 of the New Civil Code considering that the complaint failed to show any allegation that the subject lot was so small for residential purposes and that it was bought by Spouses Hipolito merely for speculation and it was about to be re-sold by them. 29 Even if it were otherwise, still the evidence is insufficient to show that Spouses Hipolito are about to re-sell the subject lot or that it was resold to third persons.
Settled is the rule that when the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the CA, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court, and may no longer be reviewed on Rule 45 petitions. 30
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated September 30, 2008 and Resolution dated November 14, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104021 are AFFIRMED." (Peralta, J., no part in view of the concurrence of his spouse in the assailed CA decision; Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated May 27, 2009.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Fernanda Lampas Peralta concurring; rollo, pp. 37-50.
2. Id. at 52.
3. Rendered by Presiding Judge Jennifer A. Pilar; id. at 92-98.
4. Issued by Judge Eduardo B. Badecao; id. at 99-109.
5. Id. at 96.
6. Id. at 92.
7. Id. at 92-93.
8. Id. at 99, 102.
9. Id. at 111.
10. Id. at 112.
11. Id. at 110-114.
12. Id. at 99-109.
13. ART. 1621. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
If two or more adjoining owners desire to exercise the right of redemption at the same time, the owner of the adjoining land of smaller area shall be preferred; and should both lands have the same area, the one who first requested the redemption.
14. Rollo, pp. 106-107.
15. Id. at 108-109.
16. Id. at 96-98.
17. Id. at 98.
18. Id. at 67-90.
19. Id. at 37-50.
20. Art. 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any of them are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share they may respectively have in the thing owned in common.
21. Rollo, p. 46.
22. The elements for the exercise of the right of redemption are, to wit: (i) allegation that Lot No. 524 was so small; (ii) that it was bought by Spouses Hipolito merely for speculation; and (iii) that it was about to be re-sold by Spouses Hipolito; id. at 47.
23. Id. at 53-66.
24. Id. at 52.
25. Vda. De Formoso, et al. v. Philippine National Bank, et al., 665 Phil. 184, 197 (2011).
26. Rollo, p. 45.
27. Id. at 46.
28. Art. 1622. Whenever a piece of urban land which is so small and so situated that a major portion thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose within a reasonable time, having been bought merely for speculation, is about to be re-sold, the owner of any adjoining land has a right of pre-emption at a reasonable price.
If the re-sale has been perfected, the owner of the adjoining land shall have a right of redemption, also at a reasonable price.
xxx xxx xxx
29. Rollo, p. 48.
30. Medalla v. Laxa, 679 Phil. 457, 461 (2012).