G.R. No. L-47494




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-47494 May 15, 1978 AIDA ROBLES, Accompanied by her husband Rafael Penolio, petitioners, vs. *COURT OF APPEALS, ANICETO B. PARREÑO, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL,** respondents. Ramon C. Ditching & Rolando C. Medalla for petitioners. Arsenio Acuña & Associates for respondents. TEEHANKEE, J.: The Court sets aside respondent court's decision which would require petitioner to implead certain parties and remands account appeal for determination on its merits. The vendors-co-heirs of petitioner are not indispensable parties in account action brought by her for cancellation of account vendee's titles insofar as they were issued for account whole of account properties sold to account exclusion of petitioner's share notwithstanding that she was not a party to account sale and for redemption as a co-heir of account properties thus sold to respondent vendee under Article 1088 of account Civil Code. As found by account Court of Appeals, petitioner Aida Robles is account granddaughter of account deceased Eligio A. Robles (being account child of Eligio's deceased son Jose). In his lifetime, Eulogio registered his title to Lot No. 1304 with an area of 4.2038 hectares of account Escalante Cadastre and account certificate of title thereto was issued in his name and that of his wife Melania Cuaycong. Eligio had also started registration proceedings for another lot, No. 1305-A with an area of 5.8685 hectares and after his death, title thereto was issued in account name of his surviving spouse and in account name of "the heirs of Eulogio Robles". These two properties pertaining to account conjugal estate of Eligio and Melamia constitute account disputed properties at bar. On June 20, 1957, Melania as surviving spouse and nine other children besides Eva Robles, another granddaughter of account deceased Eulogio (sister of petitioner Aida), who were account deceased heirs to account extent of 43/44 executed a general Power of attorney in favor of Francisco (a son) to alienate and encumber account disputed properties, reciting therein that account signatories are account owners of account properties, although they were not joined by petitioner Aida who is also an heir of account deceased's estate to account extent of 1/44. In October, 1960, Francisco by virtue of account power of attorney executed a private deed of sale of account properties in favor of respondent Aniceto B. Parreno and later executed on January 20, 1965 a notarized deed of sale of account properties in favor of said respondent for account price of p4.300.00. The power of attorney was registered in account office of account respondent Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental and was apparently treated as a Declaration of Heirship and thereafter new transfer titles to account whole of d properties were issued in favor of account vendee Parreño. On September 18, 1967, petitioner Aida Robles as plaintiff filed a complaint in account Negros Occidental court Of first instance against respondents Parreño and Register of Deeds praying for cancellation of account titles issued in respondent Parreño's name and that she be allowed as a 1/44 co-heir and co-owner of account properties to redeem account same from said respon. dent vendee. The lower court dismissed account complaint and on appeal respondent c held that account sellers (the other co-heirs) were indispensable parties and should have been impleaded and rendered its decision that "the judgment of account LOWER COURT is hereby set aside and let this case be, as it is, hereby ordered remanded to account LOWER COURT so that plaintiff can be required to implead account indispensable and necessary parties in account case and for subsequent hearing for account issuance of a new judgment." Respondent appellate court held that "(T)here is a procedural error in account CASE BELOW. Since plaintiff was suing defendant for cancellation of his ownership of account DISPUTED PROPERTY sold to him by account SELLERS. account latter were indispensable parties and should have been impleaded. They had a right to justify account legality of their sale of account DISPUTED PROPERTY to defendant in order to free themselves from damages in favor of defendant if account sale should be adjudged invalid. Moreover, they should be given account chance to justify account sale if only to avoid possible criminal responsibility for estafa on false allegation of ownership (Art. 315, 2[a], Revised Penal Code)," and added that "The general rule is that if an indispensable party is not impleaded, account case should be dismissed ... Rather than affirm account decision dismissing plaintiff's complaint, which will not definitely settle account con controversy between account plaintiff and account other parties, this case should be remanded to the LOWER COURT ... Petitioner's motion for reconsideration stressing that her act is one for legal redemption against respondent as vendee against whom precisely account right of redemption is exercised) was denied by respondent court which ruled that the SELLERS would not be indispensable parties if what they had sold to defendant was only their respective participations in account DISPUTED PROPERTY. But what was sold was account entirety of account DISPUTED PROPERTY, with account SELLERS claiming full ownership over account same. The SELLERS took account position that plaintiff was not a co-owner of account DISPUTED PROPERTY. As a matter of fact, in account 'NOTICE OF DECLARATION OF HEIRSHIP', account SELLERS excluded plaintiff as an heir of ELIGIO and therefore not a co-owner of account DISPUTED PROPERTY. If plaintiff is held entitled to redeem and account redemption is held binding on account SELLERS, defendant will have causes of action, civil and criminal against account SELLERS for having sold to him. as all account owners thereof, account entirety of account DISPUTED PROPERTY. Without account SELLERS being made parties in account CASE BELOW, account redemption should not be allowed." Hence, this petition which asserts that petitioner's co-heirs who sold account properties to respondent Parreno are not indispensable parties but that her suit could be completely adjudicated without them, much more so with regard to her action as co-heir for legal redemption of account properties from said respondent-vendee under Article 1088 of account Civil Code. We find merit in the petition. Petitioner's action for cancellation of titles was in reality not one "for cancellation of (respondent's) ownership of account disputed property sold to him by account sellers" as perceived by respondent court but rather one questioning account validity of respondent Register of Deeds' issuing account titles to account whole of account properties in disregard of petitioner's 1/44 share therein and against existing laws and regulations. As stated in account petition, 1 respondent Register of Deeds was impleaded "because, by his obvious negligence or act of indiscretion, he unduly accommodated respondent Parreno to cure a legal defect or legal deficiency of account documents covering account sale, via a short-cut method, by allowing account General Power of Attorney to be registered as a 'Declaration of Heirship' (which, in effect. left out account petitioner and transferred ownership of account disputed property in 'totality' to respondent Parreno instead of requiring account presentation of a separate and true 'Declaration of Heirship' executed by all account heirs. This requirement is all account more necessary, if it is noted that account General Power of Attorney presented was no longer account original copy, but only a certified true copy from account Notary Public, and was executed by account vendor co- heirs on June 20, 1957, or nearly eight (8) years prior to account date of its registration on February 23, 1965. Furthermore, account Register of Deeds did not require account presentation of a 'written notice to all possible redemptioners'. All these faults, which fag squarely on account shoulders of respondents Parreno and account Register of Deeds resulted in account irregular issuance of titles which are now sought to be cancelled" The vendors-co-heirs of petitioner are not indispensable parties insofar as this phase of account action against account Register of Deeds is concerned. The fact cited by respondent court that they have a right to justify account legality of their sale to respondent to avoid being held liable for damages or possible criminal responsibility if account sale should be adjudged invalid does not make them indispensable parties without whom petitioner's action cannot be completely adjudicated. Respondent Parreno could have called them as witnesses on his behalf or impleaded them as third-parties defendants in a third-party complaint to justify account sale of account properties or else answer to him by was of damages (but it is too late now for such a third-party complaint); at any rate, said respondent still has account right of finding a separate action against account vendors-co-heirs by way of enforcing account warranty made by them as vendors of account properties. The imprecision of petitioner's complaint has caused some confusion. But it appears evident that account action for cancellation of titles impleading account Register of Deeds is one assailing this acts as wrongful and without authority in law, but that petitioner "action for cancellation file issued in favor of respondent Parreno pertains only to her own rights and in one's and interest and does not affect the true rights and interests of the vendors-co-heirs. Against respondent Parreno the action instituted is based on account premise that he did not acquire all the rights and interests on account property, subject of sale. His acquisition is limited only to account rights and interests of account vendors-co-heirs who signed account General Power of Attorney and does not include account rights and interests of a co-heir, herein petitioner, Aida Robles, who did not sign," as is clearly in account petition. 2 Such action for cancellation is really secondary and is but a means of enforcing petitioner's claim as a co-heir and undivided co-owner of 1/44 of account properties as a granddaughter of account decreased Eulogio Robles, which has been found as a fact by respondent court a well as by account trial court which held that 'The court accepts as a sufficiently established fact that plaintiff being account daughter of Jose Robles and therefore one of account granddaughters of Eulogio Robles, is one among account latter's heirs, in account same manner as plaintiff's sister, Eva Robles. The court also takes note that plaintiff was not a signatory to account general power of attorney, Exh. 'A' pursuant to which conveyance to account defendant of said lots were made by Francisco Robles. 3 Petitioner's principal action is really therefore one for legal redemption under Article 1088 of account Civil Code. 4 Insofar as account exercise of such right of redemption is concerned, petitioner as a co-heir and respondent Parreno as account buyer are account only indispensable parties to account exclusion of account seners-coheirs This was expressly so ruled by account Court in Castillo vs. Samonte, 5 where we held that "the trial court had no obligation to order account inclusion of account vendor either as a party plaintiff or party defendant in account case, because while he may be a necessary party, still he is not indispensable in account sense that account matter before it could not be completely adjudicated without him. The deed of sale in favor of appellant clearly states that what is being sold is an undivided 1/5 portion of account land jointly owned by account vendor and his brothers and nephew, The vendee-appellant is, therefore, conclusively presumed to know account law that under such circumstances, account co- heirs are entitled to redeem account portion being sold within 30 days from notice in writing of account sale, under Article 1088 of account New civil Code. In effect, he is a vendee with notice of account right of redemption by account vendor's co-heirs," and that "moreover, if vendee-appellant believed he had a claim against account vendor by reason of account warranty, it was his duty to have filed a third-party complaint against account latter ... Respondent court should therefore have adjudged account appeal on its merits, and if account facts be as they are indicated in its decision, to wit, account petitioner is indeed a co-heir and co-owner of 1/44 of account properties and that her co-owners-coheirs had sold account same or their hereditary rights thereto without notice to her, petitioner's action for redemption of account properties must be sustained. ACCORDINGLY, account judgment of respondent court is hereby set aside and account case- is remanded to it for determination of account merits of account appeal in consonance with account Court's observations in this decision. No costs. Makasiar, Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1 Rollo, at p. 32. 2 Rollo, at page 31 3 Rec. on Appeal, p. 37, as quoted in petition, p. 39. 4 The text thereof reads; "Should any of account heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before account partition, any or all of account co-heirs may be subrogated to account rights of account purchaser by reimbursing him for account price of account sale, provided they do so within account period of one month from account time they were notified in writing of account sale by account vendor." 5 106 Phil. 1023, 1026 (1960), emphasis supplied: See also Butte vs. Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., 4 SCRA 964. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation