Scribd
Upload
515 views2 pages

Cabrera vs. Villanueva

- The document discusses a case regarding the sale of a 28/112 share of a property by two co-owners, Feliciano and Antonio Oropesa, to private respondent Victoriana E. Villanueva in 1968. - Petitioner Erlinda O. Cabrera, another co-owner, claimed she was not properly notified of the sale according to Article 1623 of the New Civil Code, which requires written notice to co-owners. - However, the Court held that while Cabrera had actual knowledge of the sale, receiving the new transfer certificate of title listing Villanueva as a co-owner was sufficient to serve as the written notice required by law. Cabr

Uploaded by

Jerome Aviso
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
515 views2 pages

Cabrera vs. Villanueva

- The document discusses a case regarding the sale of a 28/112 share of a property by two co-owners, Feliciano and Antonio Oropesa, to private respondent Victoriana E. Villanueva in 1968. - Petitioner Erlinda O. Cabrera, another co-owner, claimed she was not properly notified of the sale according to Article 1623 of the New Civil Code, which requires written notice to co-owners. - However, the Court held that while Cabrera had actual knowledge of the sale, receiving the new transfer certificate of title listing Villanueva as a co-owner was sufficient to serve as the written notice required by law. Cabr

Uploaded by

Jerome Aviso
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Cabrera vs. Villanueva G.R. No. 75069 April 15, 1988 PARAS, J.

: FACTS: Petitioner is a co-owner of a real property situated in Manila, originally covered by TCT No. 64950 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila. On March 12, 1968, by way of a Deed of Absolute Sale, Feliciano Oropesa and Antonio Oropesa, co-owners of said property, sold their shares of 14/112 each pro indiviso or 28/112 share, for and in consideration of the sum of P6,000.00 each or a total of P12,000.00 to Victoriana E. Villanueva (private respondent herein). In 1969, by reason of said sale TCT No. 64950 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. 96437, was issued by the Registry of Deeds of Manila wherein the buyer was constituted as a co-owner pro indiviso of the entire parcel, to the extent of the 28/112 share. This was after the former owners Feliciano and Antonio, both surnamed Oropesa, had executed a Joint Affidavit attesting to the fact that they had notified in writing the co-owners of the property in question and said co-owners did not and could not offer any objection thereto. Several years after, the buyer Victoriana E. Villanueva as the new co-owner, sent a letter dated September 23, 1980 thru her counsel, to Erlinda 0. Cabrera, the other co-owner, proposing to her the partition of the property in question. The latter did not agree to such proposal; instead, in her letter, dated October 30, 1980, addressed to Villanueva, she offered to redeem the 28/112 share of the latter in the property. Villanueva refused such proposal, hence the filing of an action for legal redemption by the former. Both parties admitted the aforementioned facts by stating them in their Stipulation of Facts submitted to the trial court. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner was legally and duly notified of the
sale of the 28/112 share of the property in question in the light of Art. 1623 of the New Civil Code.

HELD: Yes. We have no doubt that petitioner had actual knowledge of the sale, she having been informed verbally by the private respondent herself as they were neighbors. But We have adhered to the principle that notwithstanding the actual knowledge of a owner, he or she is still entitled to a written notice from the vendor-co-owner in order to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and validity and to quiet any doubts that the alienation is not definitive. For more than ten years, petitioner remained unperturbed by the fact that private respondent was already registered as a co-owner and her uncles were no longer co-owners. It was only several years later when the value of the property considerably increased that petitioner asserted her claim re the right to redeem under Art. 1623. Petitioner has thus slept on her

Jerome C. Aviso

rights and is now estopped from questioning the validity of the sale. We may even regard the receipt of a copy of the transfer certificate of title, indicating private respondent as one of the co-owners, as service of the written notice required by Art. 1623. Clearly, petitioner's right to redeem expired a long time ago.

Jerome C. Aviso

You might also like