ANGELA BUTTE v. MANUEL UY and SONS, INC.

G.R. No. L-15499

February 12, 1962

REYES, JBL, J.

TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Legal redemption (1) Period to redeem

DOCTRINE: Article 1623 provides that the right of legal redemption shall be exercised within
thirty days from the notice in writing by the vendor. This is because the vendor is in the best
position to know the co-owners to be notified and to certify such sale to them. Here, the notice
of the vendor Garnier and not the earlier notice by vendee MUSI, when received by
redemptioner Butte through judicial administrator BPI, started the 30-day period, the last day
on which Buttes consignation of the price of Garniers property share was validly effected.
FACTS:
(1) Jose V. Ramirez was co-owner of a Sta Cruz, Manila house and lot along with six co-owners
in total, all surnamed Ramirez: Jose V., Jose E., Jose Ma., Rita, and Marie Garnier.
(2) In the settlement of Ramirezs estate, a special proceeding was instituted after the latters
death on 20 October 1951. Bank of the Philippine Islands became judicial administrator.
(3) Mrs. Angela Butte was to receive 1/3 of the free portion of Ramirezs estate per his last will
and testament, with the estate given to his decedentsestate proceedings were still
pending during this decision because of creditor claims exceeding the deceaseds assets.
(4) Marie Garnier Vda. de Ramirez sold her undivided share to Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. (MUSI)
on 9 December 1958 for P500,000.
(5) MUSIs letter declaring the sale was received by BPI on 15 December 1958, and was
received by Butte thru counsel Delgado, Flores & Macapagal the next day, on 16 December.
(6) Marie Garnier through attorney-in-fact Mrs. Elsa Chambers wrote a letter to BPI on 11
December 1958 confirming the sale.
(7) Butte was rejected in her offer to MUSI to redeem Marie Garniers sold 1/6th share and her
payment of a Philippine National Bank P500,000 cashier's check, sent thru Atty. Resplandor
Sobretodo on 15 January 1959. She consigned the P500,000 in court and filed an action for
legal redemption, praying for conveyance of the property and damages.
(8) TC dismissed petition as Mrs. Butte had no right to redeem the property and if ever she had
any, her statutory 30-day period for legal redemption as provided by the Civil Code had
ended. Both parties appealed directly to SC.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether Butte can exercise legal redemption over the Garnier share: YES
(a) as testamentary heir of Ramirez;
(b) despite the judicial administrator appointed; and
(c) pending final distribution in the testate proceedings of the decedent (or causante)
(2) Whether she failed to exercise such right within the period prescribed by law: NO
(a) Whether the notice in writing that starts the legal 30-day period for redemption was the
notice by the vendee MUSI to BPI on 9 December
(b) Whether BPIs receipt on 15 December 1958 of Garniers notice starts the 30-day period
HELD: TC reversed and set aside. MUSI ordered to accept the price and convey the 1/6 share
within 30 days from finality and to account for rentals and fruits. Case remanded for further
consistent proceedings.
RATIO:
(1) As testamentary heir of the estate of Ramirez, Butte is entitled to exercise the right of legal
redemption, and her consignation of the price was duly and properly made.

CONEJERO

CASE #9 11/23/16

(a) Butte and her co-heirs acquired, through the principle of transmission, an interest in the
undivided 1/6 share from the moment of Ramirezs death
Article 777 says the rights to the succession are transmitted to his heirs from the
moment of the death of the decedent which inheritance includes all the property,
rights and obligations that survive the decedent as stated in Article 776.
Any of the heirs may have exercised legal redemption since the heirs became coowners of the Sta. Cruz property (and co-owners of the whole share since it was
undivided), together with the original surviving co-owners
(b) The judicial administrators rights do not include the legal redemption, even if it includes
the rights of possession of the deceaseds estate for debt payment (Sec 3, ROC 85),
and of administration to file suit for protection of rights of the deceased (Sec. 2, ROC 88)
The right of legal redemption formed no part of Ramirezs estate, as such right only
came into existence 8 years after his death, when the sale to MUSI was perfected.
The redemption right originally vested in the heirs in their individual capacity and they
did not derivatively acquire it from their decedent. When J.V. died, no co-owners of
the Sta. Cruz property had sold his undivided share to a stranger, so he had no right
of redemption to transmit to his heirs. Ramirez could not have acquired such right of
redemption after his death as death extinguishes civil personality, and all further
juridical capacity to acquire or transmit rights and obligations of any kind (Art. 42).
(c) Despite pending testate proceedings, the fact remains that so long as that undivided
share remains in the estate, the heirs own it and are co-owners just like the deceased.
Even if the property is sold to pay creditors, it would not destroy their ownership presale, but would only transfer it. Whether the redemptioner continues being a coowner after exercising legal redemption is irrelevant for the purposes of law.
If the original share of Ramirez is sold by the administrator, his heirs would be
considered as still having acquired that share since their heirship is undisputed. The
purchaser of the share would acquire title from the Ramirez heirs represented by
BPI, not from a dead man who cannot convey title or from the administrator who
does not own the estate. The heirs would only be considered as having not acquired
title if if the inheritance is repudiated or the heir's quality as such is voided.
(2) The consignation by Butte on 15 January 1959 was in due time as it was the last of the 30
days for redemption, counted by excluding the first day of notice on 15 December 1958 and
including the last day of 15 January 1959, pursuant to Article 13 of the Civil Code.
(a) The operative notice in writing is that by the vendor Garnier through Mrs. Chambers
to BPI on 11 December 1958, and not the notice given by the vendee MUSI. Article
1623 provides that the 30 days shall be counted from when the vendor gives notice
in writing because the vendor is in the best position to know the co-owners to be
notified and to certify such sale to them, as deliberately changed by the legislature
from the obsolete Article 1524 of the Civil Code of 1889 where the manner of and the
person giving notice was immaterial.
(b) The date of 15 December 1958 when BPI received Marie Garniers notice can not be
counted for the start of 30 day period since BPI was not a proper redemptionerthe
right of redemption was not part of the estate [see: Ratio 1b].

CONEJERO

CASE #9 11/23/16