BERNARDO MENDOZA I, BERNARDO MENDOZA II, GUADALUPE M. MANGALE, JULIANA M. SAMONTE, PACITA M. SAMONTE, RICARDO MENDOZA, FRANCISCO MENDOZA, PATRICIA MENDOZA, OLYMPIA M. DIZON, ROM…

This is a petition
for review on certiorari
seeking to nullify the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 23, 1976, in
C.A.-G.R. No. 56049-R entitled “Bernardo Mendoza I, et al. v. Renato Samonte, et al.,”
which affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan; and its resolution dated September 15, 1976, which denied the motion for
reconsideration.

The antecedent facts are, as follows:

On February 18, 1969, petitioners Bernardo Mendoza I, Bernardo
Mendoza II, Guadalupe M. Mangale, Juliana M. Samonte, Pacita M. Samonte, Ricardo Mendoza, Francisco Mendoza, Patricia
Mendoza, Olympia M. Dizon, Romeo Mendoza, Reynaldo Mendoza, Remedios M. Bernabe and Trinidad Manuel Mendoza instituted before the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan an action for reconveyance of real property against private respondents
spouses Renato Samonte and
Lucia de la Cruz Samonte.  On October 27, 1970, petitioners filed a First Amended Complaint
wherein they alleged that in the event that the sale of the real property by
petitioner Trinidad Manuel Mendoza to private respondents is declared valid,
they are nonetheless entitled to legal redemption.

During the pre-trial on June 28,
1971, the parties,
through their respective counsel, submitted the following partial stipulation
of facts (pp. 48-51, Record on Appeal):

“ ‘x x x:

“ ‘1.   Plaintiffs are the
legal heirs of the late Arcadio Mendoza of Barrio Taliptip, Bulacan, Bulacan; plaintiff Trinidad Manuel being the surviving
spouse of said Arcadio Mendoza and the rest of the
plaintiffs being the legitimate children of spouses Arcadio
Mendoza (deceased) and Trinidad Manuel;

“ ‘2.    Arcadia Mendoza and
Trinidad Manuel were married on April
22, 1923, in the
Catholic Church, Parish of Bulacan, Bulacan;

“ ‘3.    Arcadio Mendoza died in the
Barrio of Taliptip, Bulacan,
Bulacan, on November
4, 1944;

” ‘4.    The late Arcadia
Mendoza left properties, real and personal, among which is the property covered
by Original Certificate of Title No. 12192 of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan, situated at Taliptip, Bulacan, Bulacan, consisting of
nine (9) parcels of land, with an aggregate area of 33,398 square meters; x x x;

” ‘5.    The property in
question is Lot 3-A, which is a portion of Lot
3, which Lot 3-A is more particularly described as
follows:

‘(A parcel of land (Lot 3-A of 2 the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-­17370,
being a portion of Lot 3, described on plan Psu-51078, LRC (GLRO) Record No.
32994), situated in the Barrio of Taliptip,
Municipality of Bulacan, Province of Bulacan.  Bounded on
the NE., points 1 to 2 by (Lot 8, Psu-51078, Road Widening) Bulacan-Obando
Provincial Road (15.00 m. wide); on the SE., points 2 to 3 by property of
Faustino Samonte; on the SW., points 3 to 4 by
property of Faustino Samonte; and on the NW., points
4 to 1 by Lot 3-B of the Subdivision plan. 
Beginning at a point marked ‘1’ on plan, being S, 30 deg. 52′ E.,
3794.82 m. from BLLM 1, Mp. of Bulacan,

thence S. 49 deg. 38’E., 46.93 m. to point 2;

thence S. 42 deg.
21’W., 49.94 m. to point 3;

thence N. 43 deg.
47’W., 47.33 m. to point 4;

thence N. 42 deg.
46’E., 45.14 m. to the point

of beginning containing an area of TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND
THIRTY EIGHT (2,238) SQUARE METERS, more or less.  All points referred to are indicated on the
plan and are marked on the ground as follows:  points 1 and 4 by PS. Cyl.
Conc. Mons. 15 x 60 cm., and the rest of Old
PLS.  Stone Mons. 20x20x60 cm., bearings true;
declination 0 deg. 48′ E., date of the original survey, April 27, 1926 and that
of the subdivision survey, July 21, 1961.’

“6.     Arcadio
Mendoza acquired ownership over the above-mentioned nine (9) parcels of land,
including Lot 3, through donation from the late Jose Samonte,
which mode of acquisition was recognized and adjudicated by the Court of
Appeals in its decision dated September 23, 1964, in the case entitled: ‘Victor
Samonte, et al. v. Maria Samonte,
et al.,’ G.R. No. 22891-R; x x x;

“7.     In the case decided by
the Court of Appeals, CA-G.R. No. 22891-R, the plaintiffs were:

VICTOR SAMONTE, AGATONA
SAMONTE, ARTEMIO VILLANUEVA, CELESTINO VILLANUEVA, RAMON VILLANUEVA, MERCEDES
VILLANUEVA, SANTOS VILLANUEVA, MAXIMO VILLANUEVA, ALIPIO VILLANUEVA, SIXTO DE
LOS REYES, JOSE DE LOS RE YES, LIGAYA DE LOS REYES, ELINO VILLANUEVA, CRISANTA
VILLANUEVA, PEDRO VILLANUEVA, NICOLAS VILLANUEVA, ARSENIO VILLANUEVA, BALTAZAR
VILLANUEVA, OTILLA VILLANUEVA, ENRIQUE VILLANUEVA, JOSE VILLANUEVA, ROLANDO
VILLANUEVA, MARTA MENDOZA, MARIA MENDOZA, FELIPA VILLENA, ADELA ANDAYA, and
MATIAS VILLANUEVA. (sic)

while
the defendants were:

FAUSTINO SAMONTE, MARIA
SAMONTE, BERNARDO MENDOZA, GUADALUPE M. VDA. DE MANGALI, JULIANA MENDOZA, RAUL
SAMONTE, BERNARDO MENDOZA II, RICARDO MENDOZA, FRANCISCO MENDOZA, PACITA
MENDOZA, CAYETANO SAMONTE and TRINIDAD MANUEL, in her own right and as
guardian-ad-litem for the minors, OLIMPIA, PATRICIA,
REYNALDO, REMEDIOS and ROMEO all surnamed MENDOZA;

“8.     The
aforementioned Lot 3 was subsequently subdivided into two (2) lots,
namely:  Lot 3-A with an area of 2238
square meters and Lot 3-B with an area of 2115 square meters, as shown in the
Subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-17370, dated September 7, 1961, duly approved by the
Commissioner of Land Registration, Antonio Noblejas;

“9.     On June 26, 1962,
plaintiff Trinidad Manuel Mendoza sold to defendants, Renato
Samonte and Lucia de la Cruz Samonte,
Lot 3-A x x x;

“10.   The said ‘Dokumento ng Bilihan’
is written in Tagalog, signed by plaintiff Trinidad
Manuel Mendoza, as vendor, witnessed by plaintiffs Juliana Mendoza and Pacita Mendoza Samonte, and notarized
by Atty. Pedro Magsalin;

“11.   In said ‘Dokumento ng Bilihan,’ plaintiff Trinidad
Manuel Mendoza declared the following:

‘Na sa
aming kasunduan ng aking mga anak at ako, ang nasabing Lot 3–A ay siyang aking kalahati sa nasabing Lot 3, na may kaunting lamang, at ang Lot 3-B ay siyang nauukol sa aking mga
anak na tunay
nilang pagaari.’  (See first paragraph, page 3, Dokumento ng Bilihan,
(Annex ‘C’);

‘Na sa aking pakikipagkasundo (sic) sa aking mga anak
at sa kanilang kapasiyahan at kapahintulutan ang nasabing Lot 3-A ay siyang aking ipinagbili
sa magasawang (sic) Renato Samonte at Lucia de la
Cruz, alang-alang sa aming pangako na
ipagbili sa nasabing magasawa ang kalahati ng
naturang Lot 3, na ang halaga ay matagal
ng tinanggap namin sa mga
nakabiling magasawa.’  (see second paragraph, page 3, Dokumento ng Bilihan,
supra);

‘Na alangalang (sic) sa
halagang TATLONG LIBO AT LIMANG DAANG PISO
(P3,500.00), Salaping pilipino
(sic), na aking ng (sic) tinanggap na may mga dalawang taon
na sa magasawang
(sic) RENATO SAMONTE at LUCIA DE LA CRUZ, mga pilipino (sic), may sapat na gulang at nanihirahan
sa Taliptip, Bulakan, Bulakan, ay aking ipinagbibili, isinasalin at inililipat sa nasabing magasawang
Renato Samonte at Lucia de
la Cruz; sa kanilang mga anak at tagapagmana
ang Lote 3-A ng Lote 3, na
binabanggit sa itaas nito, pati
ng pagkamayari  at posesion (sic) ng nasabing Lote
3-A, na walang pinanagutan (sic) kahit ano hanggang sa
petsang ito, at aking ipagtatangol sa ano mang
habol sa Lote  3-A ang mga bumiling
magasawang (sic) Renato Samonte  at  Lucia de la Cruz sa
sarili kong pananagot.’ (See last paragraph, page 2, Dokumento ng Bilihan, supra).

“12.   All the
improvements in said Lot 3-A were placed therein by
defendant spouses Renato Samonte
and Lucia de la Cruz Samonte.

“WHEREFORE, parties herein respectfully pray that the
foregoing partial stipulation of facts be admitted, and that the above­-entitled
case be set for hearing for purposes of receiving evidence insofar as the controverted (sic) facts are concerned.

“Malolos, Bulacan,
June 18, 1971.

(SGD.) ERNESTO M.
TOMANENG

Counsel for the
plaintiffs

Suite
507 Marvel Bldg. I

258 Juan Luna, Manila

(SGD.) FRANCISCO E.
RODRIGO, JR.

Counsel for the
defendants

54 Diña (sic) Juana Rodriguez, St.

Quezon City'”

On October 15, 1973,
the trial court dismissed the complaint, with costs against petitioners, based
on the following grounds (pp. 51-53, Record on Appeal):

“There are several issues raised by the plaintiffs in their
pre-trial brief as well as memorandum and foremost among them is the question
regarding the validity of the sale. 
According to the plaintiffs, the sale of the disputed property in favor
of the defendants was null and void because as a mere co-owner of an undivided
estate, Trinidad Mendoza had no right to divided (sic) the estate into parts
and then convey a part thereof by metes and bounds to a third person.  Such was the case, according to the
plaintiffs, since there had never been any partition, judicial or
extrajudicial, of the estate among the heirs of the late Arcadio
Mendoza.

“It is apparent that the resolution of this issue will depend
on whether or not the heirs of Arcadio Mendoza had
already partitioned his estate and in pursuance thereto, adjudicated the lot in
question to the plaintiff Trinidad Mendoza.

“After examining the ‘Dokumento ng Bilihan‘, evidencing the sale
of the lot in question to the defendants, the Court is convinced that there was
such an agreement to partition the properties, including the one involved in
this case, left by the deceased Arcadio Mendoza.  From paragraphs 4 and 5 of said document, x x x it can readily be seen that
the partition had been accomplished by the heirs of Arcadio
Mendoza.  x x x.  Said paragraphs,
which read as follows, clearly stated that it was the agreement among the
surviving children and wife of Arcadio Mendoza that
Lot 3-A, which was the other half of Lot 3, was to be the share of plaintiff
Trinidad Mendoza while Lot 3-B would belong to the children:

‘Na sa aming kasunduan ng aking
mga anak at ako, ang nasabing
Lot 3-A ay siyang aking kalahati sa nasabing
Lot 3, na may kaunting  lamang, at ang Lot 3-B ay siyang nauukol sa aking
mga anak na tunay nilang
pagaari (sic).

 ‘Na sa aking pakikipagkasundo
sa aking mga anak at sa kanilang kapasiyahan at kapahintulutan ang nasabing Lot 3-A ay siyang aking ipinagbili sa magasawang (sic) Renato Samonte at Lucia de la
Cruz, alang-alang sa aming pangako na
ipagbili sa nasabing magasawa (sic) ang kalahati ng
naturang Lot 3, na ang halaga ay matagal
ng (sic) tinangap (sic) namin sa mga
nakabiling magasawa (sic).’

Indeed, it must habe
(sic) been because of this agreement to partition the estate, that Lot 3, from
which the land in question came, was subdivided on September 7, 1961 by a
surveyor as stated in the second paragraph of said deed of sale.

‘Na upang mahati
humigit kumulang sa dalawang bahagi
ang nasabing Lote No. 3, ang isa ay para sa
mga anak ng namatay na
aking asawang Arcadio Mendoza, at ang pangalawa ay para sa akin na tunay kong pagaari
(sic), ay ipinagawa namin ang ang (sic) plano
de subdivision (LRC) PSD-17370 petsa Sept. 7, 1961, aprobado ni G.
Antonio H. Noblejas, Comisionado
ng Land Registration, at ang
kinalabasan ay ang mga sumusunod:

‘Lote 3-A-Area .2238 sq. m.:

x x           x x        x x        x x’

“It bears
emphasis that according to the fourth paragraph of the ‘Documento ng
Bilihan‘ quoted above, the sale made by plaintiff
Trinidad Mendoza of Lot 3-A to the defendants had the prior consent and
approval of her children, the other plaintiffs herein.

“In the opinion of the Court, the paragraphs cited above
constitute clear admissions on the part of plaintiff Trinidad Mendoza, who
executed said deed of sale, and on the part of plaintiffs Pacita
Samonte and Juliana Samonte,
who signed the same as witnesses, regarding the existence of the partition agreement adjudicating
to plaintiff Trinidad Mendoza the land in question before it was sold to the
defendants.

“Of course, plaintiffs Trinidad Manuel, Pacita
Samonte and Juliana Samonte,
who all took the stand, vehemently denied having read and understood the
contents of the ‘Documento ng
Bilihan‘ which they admittedly signed.  According to plaintiff Trinidad Manuel, she
affixed her thumbmark on the document when her sister
Lourdes Manuel, the mother of defendant Renato Samonte, asked her to do so and promised to take care of the ‘interests’ of her
children.  On her part, Pacita Samonte claimed that
although she was able to read the title of the document, she did not read the
contents thereof, however, since she signed the same only upon the assurance of her aunt that her mother
Trinidad Mendoza, had already given her conformity.  Juliana Samonte
also denied having read the document but alleged that her failure to do so was
due to her illness then.

“But in the opinion of the Court, all these denials cannot
prevail over the presumption that the said plaintiffs understood the contents
of the deed of sale whtn (sic) they signed the same.  For following the ordinary course of human
nature, one does not affix his signature on a legal document if he does not
understand the same.  Besides, it appears
that the ‘document (sic) ng Bilihan”
was written in a dialect spoken by and known to the said plaintiffs who while
on the stand all testified in the Tagalog dialect.

“Moreover, according to plaintiff Romeo Mendoza, the son of
plaintiff Trinidad Mendoza, the ‘Documento ng Bilihan‘ was prepared by their lawyer, Atty. Pedro Magsalin who
according to the defendant Renato Samonte
read the same to the plaintiffs Trinidad Mendoza, Juliana and Pacita Samonte before the latter
affixed their respective signatures, a fact which is not improbable.

“Indeed, there is another circumstance showing why the denials
of plaintiffs Trinidad Mendoza, Juliana and Pacita Samonte cannot be given much credit.  These three plaintiffs testified that they
did not know the contents of the deed of sale not only at the time they signed
it but also after they had executed the same. 
Yet, the undeniable fact remains that after the execution of said deed
of sale in 1962, the defendants started building their house on the lot in
question in barrio Taliptip, Bulacan,
Bulacan.  The
failure of said plaintiffs and of the other plaintiffs to stop or even question
the defendants regarding the construction of their house on the lot in
question, which was being built openly in the vicinity where they all resided,
can only mean that the plaintiffs knew that the defendants had a right to build
on the disputed property.

“Considering the finding of the Court that Lot
3-A, the property in question, was the subject of a partition agreement and was
adjudicated to plaintiff Trinidad Mendoza, it follows that said property was no
longer held in co-ownership by the plaintiffs at the time that it was sold to
the defendants.  Such being the case, the
provisions of Article 1620 of the Civil Code, allowing a co-owner to exercise
the right of redemption, cannot be applied.”

To summarize, the trial court took into
account the following in dismissing petitioners’ complaint:  (1) the pertinent provisions of the “Dokumento ng Bilihan”
to prove that Lot 3 has been subdivided and that Lot 3-A has been adjudicated
to petitioner Trinidad Manuel Mendoza; (2) the presumption that petitioners
Trinidad Manuel Mendoza, Pacita Samonte
and Juliana Mendoza understood the contents of the document when they signed
it; (3) estoppel on the part of petitioners; and (4)
non-applicability of Article 1620 of the Civil Code.

On appeal, the respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
of the trial court (p. 40, Rollo). The
motion for reconsideration was denied (p. 70, Rollo).  Hence,
the present petition.

The issues are whether or not: 
(1) the “Dokumento ng
Bilihan” is valid; and (2) petitioners can still
exercise the right of legal redemption.

According to petitioners, on June 26, 1962, when the alleged “Dokumento
ng Bilihan” was
executed by Trinidad Manuel Mendoza, Lot 3-A was still under litigation for it was
only on September 23, 1964,
that C.A-G.R. No. 22891-R was decided by the
respondent court.  This being the case,
petitioners have not executed any agreement of partition, judicial or
extrajudicial.  As held by the respondent
court in C.A.-G.R. No. 22891-R, Lot 3-A (and other lots) was donated by Jose Samonte to Arcadio Mendoza for
which reason, petitioner Trinidad Manuel Mendoza is not entitled to one-half
(1/2) of Lot 3 but only to the share of one (1) legitimate child or 1/13 rights and interests, citing
Article 996 of the Civil Code.^[1]
The “Dokumento ng Bilihan” is null and void insofar as it affects the
rights and interests of the other petitioners because petitioner Trinidad
Manuel Mendoza can only sell her 1/13 rights and interests over Lot 3-A and not
more than that.  Corollarily,
the remaining petitioners can still exercise the right of legal redemption,
conformably with Article 1620 of the Civil Code.^[2]

Disputing these allegations of petitioners, private respondents contend that petitioner
Trinidad Manuel Mendoza declared under oath in the “Dokumento
ng Bilihan” that Lot 3-A was given to her by virtue of an
agreement of partition between her and her children.  She declared further that the land in
question was sold by her to private respondents with the knowledge and consent
of her children.  The amount paid therefor was known to her and her children.  The
document was written in Tagalog, the dialect in Bulacan.  It was signed by petitioner Trinidad Manuel
Mendoza, as vendor, witnessed by petitioners Pacita Samonte and Juliana Mendoza and prepared and notarized by
Atty. Pedro Magsalin, the family lawyer of
petitioners.  Having participated in,
consented to and/or benefited from the sale, petitioners are estopped from impugning the validity and enforceability
thereof.

Likewise, We affirm.

In resolving the first
issue, We have to settle two (2) sub-issues: 
(1) has Lot 3 been partitioned; and (2) if so, has the
subject lot been adjudicated to petitioner Trinidad Manuel Mendoza?  In this case, the source of co-ownership
among the heirs was intestate succession. 
Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is,
before its partition, owned in common by such heirs (Article 1078 of the Civil
Code).  Petitioners’ co-ownership over Lot 3 was extinguished when it
was subdivided into Lot 3-A and Lot 3-B, which portions were concretely
determined and technically described (see de la Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-27759,
April 17, 1970,
32 SCRA 307).  Against the impetuous
denial of petitioners that Lot 3 has been partitioned (pp. 19, 96, 121, Rollo) is Exhibit A which is the Subdivision Plan of
Lot 3, (LRC) PSD?17370, dated September 7, 1961, duly approved by the
Commissioner of Land
Registration.  It is also Our finding
that Lot 3-A has been adjudicated to petitioner Trinidad
Manuel Mendoza.  We take into account the
pertinent provisions of the “Dokumento ng Bilihan” and estoppel on the part of petitioners (pp. 6-8, supra).  Therefore, the “Dokumento ng Bilihan”
is a valid document.

We resolve the second issue based on the previous discussion that
the co-ownership has been extinguished. 
Article 1620 of the Civil Code applies only if the co-ownership still
exists.  If the property has been partitioned or an identified share has
been sold, there is no longer any right of legal redemption (see Umengan v. Butucan, et al., 117
Phil. 325; Caro v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
L-46001, March 25, 1982,
113 SCRA 10).

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED.  The decision dated June 23, 1976 and the resolution dated September 15, 1976 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Grino-Aquino, JJ., concur.

^[1]
ART. 996.  If a widow or widower and
legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the
succession the same share as that of each of the children.

^[2]
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.