PERSHING TAN QUETO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. CARMELITO, RUFO, HERACLEO AND ELENA, ALL SURNAMED CANDONGO, AND VICENTE CALIMPONG, REPRESENTING DECEASED WIFE, BENITA CANDONGO, RES…

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance
of Misamis Occidental in Special Civil Case No. 0224
which denied a petition filed by a vendee a retro to consolidate his ownership
after the expiration of the period of redemption.  Originally elevated to the Court of Appeals,
the case was certified to Us because it involves
questions of law only.

The facts are as follows: 
“Based on the pleadings filed by parties the Court finds that Pedro
Candongo, during his lifetime, inherited from his
deceased parents 858 square meters of Lot 484 located at Misamis
Annex, Ozamiz City; that on June 14, 1958, the
surviving heirs of Pedro Candongo, namely:  Carmelito, Benita, Rufo, Heracleo and Elena, all
surnamed Candongo, sold under pacto-de-retro
in favor of petitioner Pershing Tan Queto for
P1,000.00, 612 square meters thereof as described in the amended petition
redeemable with a period of two (2) years since the execution of the
instrument; that the petitioner has declared the land for taxation purposes in
his name and has paid the land taxes thereon; that the period of redemption has
never been extended; and that the heirs of Pedro Candongo
have failed to redeem the land within the stipulated period of two years on
June 14, 1960 and that the transaction is indeed a pacto
de retro sale.” (Decision, pp. 45-46 of the Record on
Appeal.)

Cited as respondents in the Amended Petition
for consolidation were:  Carmelito, Rufo, Heracleo and Elena all surnamed Candongo;
and Vicente Calimpong, the surviving spouse of Benita
Candongo who died on September 23, 1958.  It is to be noted
that the respondents comprise the vendors-a-retro except for Vicente Calimpong who is the widowed spouse of Benita.  (Record on Appeal, p. 31.)

Carmelito, Rufo,
Heracleo and Elena renounced and waived their
respective rights of redemption even before the filing of the amended petition
on July 28, 1971.  They did not file any opposition to the
petition.

Vicente Calimpong did not oppose the petition.  However, the children of Benita with Vicente,
namely:  Lolita (25 years old), Lucita (23 years old), Jimmy (21 years old), Luzvilla (19 years old), Vicente, Jr. (17 years old), and
Edwin (15 years old) formally opposed the petition.  They claimed that they inherited their
mother’s right of redemption and
that the transaction was really an equitable mortgage because the price was
inadequate.  (Record on
Appeal, pp. 38-41.)

The parties have not
disputed the finding of the court a quo “that the transaction is indeed a pacto de retro sale.” Hence the sole issue is whether or not the lower court erred
in denying the petition.

In justifying the denial,
the court a quo said:

“When Benita Candongo died on September 23, 1958, her surviving
husband Vicente Calimpong and children, Lolita, Lucita, Jimmy, Luzvilla, Vicente,
Jr., and Edwin inherited from her the real right to redeem the land under the
terms of the contract.

‘The right of Vito de Vera to repurchase the land under the terms
of the contract is a real right (derecho real) and
consequently transmissible to his
heirs upon his death.’ (De Vera vs. De Vera, CA-G.R. No. 33-R
[L-219] October 11, 1947; 44 O.G. 3318).

“Said heirs of Benita Candongo have
up to reaching the age of majority to redeem the pacto
de retro sale.  This right inures to the
other vendors a retro mentioned in the document of sale.

“Under Article 1620 of the Civil Code, a co-owner of a thing may
exercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners
or any of them, are sold to a third person.  The share of the late Benita Candongo has remained undivided among her surviving
heirs.  Consequently, Luzvilla Calimpong,
Vicente Calimpong, Jr., and Edwin Calimpong can redeem not only their shares
under the contract of pacto de retro sale but also the shares of their other
co-heirs by exercising the right of legal redemption.” (Record
on Appeal, pp. 46-47.)

Petitioner-appellant has made the following assignment of errors:

“I

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE HEIRS OF BENITA
CANDONGO HAVE UP TO REACHING THE AGE OF
MAJOR­ITY TO REDEEM THE PACTO DE RETRO SALE.

“II

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THIS RIGHT INURES TO
THE OTHER VENDORS A RETRO MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT OF SALE.

“III

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN INVOKING ARTICLE 1620 OF THE CIVIL
CODE UNDER WHICH THE OPPOSITORS-APPELLEES CAN REDEEM NOT ONLY THEIR SHARES
UNDER THE CONTRACT OF PACTO DE RETRO SALE BUT ALSO THE SHARES OF THEIR OTHER
CO-HEIRS.

“IV

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR
CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP, WITH COSTS.”

We do not find it necessary to discuss the assignment of errors in
extenso. 
The briefs of the litigants have not been helpful at all possibly
because the decision of the lower court is both incoherent and
incomprehensible.

True it is that the right of redemption of Benita Candongo passed to her heirs upon her death but no law
justifies the lower court’s statement that they “have up to reaching the
age of majority to redeem the pacto de retro
sale.” Moreover, the court improperly applied Article 1620 of the Civil
Code where it said that the right of redemption “inures to the other
vendors a retro mentioned in the document of sale.” That provision covers
the case where some or one of the co-owners sell(s) their/his share(s) in the
property owned in common but not the case where all of the co-owners have sold
their shares as in this case.  Thus,
Article 1620 of the Civil Code provides:

“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.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Since there is no doubt that the period of redemption had expired
without redemption having been effected, the petitioner
is entitled to a consolidation of his ownership under the sale with pacto de retro.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo
is hereby reversed and another one is entered granting the petition for
consolidation of ownership.  Costs against the appellees.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and De Castro, JJ., concur.