4.

Julio Tapec v CA
FACTS: Petitioner Julio Tapec and three of her sisters, Ester, Elizabeth, and Adeluisa,
were co-owners of four parcels of registered land in Caloocan City On August
1979, they sold 1/5 of their undivided share to their mother, Adela Blas, for
PhP10,000, making her a co-owner of the real property to that extent ANTONIO |
HIPOLITO | IMPERIAL | ZARAGOSA 47 7 years later, in 1986, however, Adela sold
her 1/5 share for PhP10,000 to respondent Zenaida Boiser, another sister of
petitioner In 1992 or 6 years after the sale, Adalia received summons with a copy
of a complaint by Zenaida demanding her share in the rentals being collected from
the tenants of the Ten Commandments Building, which stands on the co-owned
property Adalia then informs Zenaida that she was exercising her right of
redemption as co-owner of the subject property, depositing for that purpose
PhP10,000 with the Clerk of Court The case was however dismissed after Zenaida
was declared non-suited, and Adalias counterclaim was thus dismissed as well 3
years after, Adalia institutes a complaint demanding the redemption of the property,
contending that the 30- day period for redemption under Art. 1623 had not begun to
run against her or any of the other co-owners, since the vendor Adela did not inform
them about the sale, which fact they only came to know of when Adalia received the
summons in 1992 Zenaida on the other hand contends that Adalia already knew
of the sale even before she received the summons since Zenaida had informed
Adalia by letter of the sale with a demand for her share of the rentals three months
before filing suit, attaching to it a copy of the deed of sale Adalias receipt of the
said letter is proven by the fact that within a week, she advised the tenants of the
building to disregard Zenaidas letter-demand The trial court dismissed the
complaint for legal redemption, holding that Art. 1623 does not prescribe any
particular form of notifying co-owners on appeal, the CA affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether the letter-demand by Zenaida to Adalia, to which the deed of sale
was attached, can be considered as sufficient compliance with the notice
requirement of Art. 1623 for the purpose of legal redemption
HELD: The petitioner points out that the case does not concern the particular form
in which such notice must be given, but rather the sufficiency of notice given by a
vendee in lieu of the required notice to be given by the vendor or prospective
vendor The text of Art. 1623 clearly and expressly prescribes that the 30 days for
making the redemption shall be counted from notice in writing by the vendor it
makes sense to require that notice be given by the vendor and nobody else, since
the vendor of an undivided interest is in the best position to know who are his coowners, who under the law must be notified of the sale Notice by the co-owner
likewise removes all doubt as to the fact of the sale, its perfection, and its validity
by not immediately notifying, or not notifying at all, a coowner, the vendor can
delay or even effectively prevent the meaningful exercise of the right of redemption
However, it would be unjust in the case at bar to require the vendor Adela to serve
notice of the sale, when the fact has already been established in both lower courts
Adalia has effectively exercised her right when she deposited the PhP10,000
redemption price 7 days after receiving the summons Fallo Petition granted,
decision of the CA reversed The decision in Etcuban v. CA is abandoned, and the
one in Butte v. Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc., as affirmed in Salatandol v. Retes, upheld
NOTE The Court failed to negate or possibly appreciate the fact of Adalias
knowledge of the sale prior to the summons, as proven her letter-advise to the
tenants of the building The period given by the Court to Adalia was 30 days after
the receipt of the summons on 5 August 1992, which is 4 September 1992.

5. Leonicia Zaide v CA

FACTS: Leonicia Zaide acquired a lot from the Bureau of Lands. He occupied the
same, declared it in his name and dutifully paid his taxes. After his death, his heirs
and siblings contested each other claiming ownership thereof. It was his heirs who
were in possession of the property. They partitioned it amongst themselves,
registered each portion under the Torrens System, and each paid their respective
taxes. The siblings filed a case for cancellation of titles and reconveyance arguing
that there was a verbal sale between Leonicia and their parents over the lot. As
evidence, they presented a subdivision plan. CA ordered the cancellation of the TCTs
in favor of the heirs.
ISSUE: W/N there was a valid sale between Leonicia and his siblings
HELD: NO. As a rule, a sale of land is valid regardless of the form it may have been
entered into. However, in the event that a 3rd party disputes the ownership, there is
no such proof in support of the ownership. As such, it cannot prejudice 3rd persons
such as the heirs in this case. Also, the heirs had a right to rely upon their Torrens
titles, which, as opposed to the subdivision plans, are definitely more credible.
Further, the subsequent buyers were in bad faith because Armando & Adelia
registered their adverse claimthis amounts to constructive notice, which negates
good faith. The Statute of Frauds likewise does not apply considering that Godofredo
& Carmen had already derived the benefits from the salesuch as the money to
pay for the loan. The receipt also suffices to constitute the memorandum required
by the Statute of Frauds. Assuming that the sale was voidable because it was
conjugal property, the same was ratified by Godofredo by introducing Armando &
Adelia to the Natanawans as the new lessors. Also, even though titled as Specific
Performance, the complaint was one for reconveyance and prescription does not
lie of one who is in actual possession of the property.

6. LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING INC v CA

FACTS: In 1976, Philippine Remnants Co., Inc. constituted the Bank of the Philippine
Islands (BPI) as its trustee to manage, administer, and sell its real estate property,
one of which was the disputed lot in Pasig. In 1988, Pedro Revilla, Jr., a licensed real
estate broker, was given formal authority by BPI to sell the lot for P1,000/sqm.
Broker Revilla contacted Alfonso Lim of Limketkai Sons Milling (LSM) who agreed to
buy the land. LSM asked that the price of P1,000/sqm. be reduced to P900.00 while
Albano stated the price is to be P1,100.00. The parties finally agreed that the lot
would be sold at P1,000/sqm. to be paid in cash. Notwithstanding the final
agreement to pay P1,000/sqm. on a cash basis, Alfonso Lim (LSM official) asked if it
was possible to pay on terms. The bank officials stated that there was no harm in
trying to ask for payment on terms because in previous transactions, the same had
been allowed. It was the understanding, however, that should the term payment be
disapproved, then the price shall be paid in cash. It was Albano who dictated the
terms under which the installment payment may be approved, and acting thereon,
Alfonso Lim wrote BPI through Merlin Albano embodying the payment initially of
10% and the remaining 90% within a period of 90 days. 2 or 3 days later, LSM
learned that its offer to pay on terms had been frozen. Alfonso Lim went to BPI and
tendered the full payment of P33,056,000.00 to Albano. The payment was refused
because Albano stated that the authority to sell that particular piece of property in
Pasig had been withdrawn from his unit. The same check was tendered to BPI VicePresident Nelson Bona who also refused to receive payment. LSM filed an action for
specific performance with damages against BPI. In the course of the trial, BPI
informed the trial court that it had sold the property under litigation to National
Book Store (NBS) in 1989. The complaint was thus amended to include NBS. RTC
ruled in favor of LSM, holding that there was a perfected contract of sale between
LSM and BPI. CA reversed, holding that no contract of sale was perfected because
there was no concurrence of the three requisites enumerated in Article 1318 of the
Civil Code.
ISSUE: W/N there was a valid contract of sale
HELD: YES. There was a meeting of the minds between the buyer and the bank in
respect to the price of P1,000/sqm. The requirements in the payment of the
purchase price on terms instead of cash were suggested by BPI Vice-President

Albano. Since the authority given to broker Revilla specified cash payment, the
possibility of paying on terms was referred to the Trust Committee but with the
mutual agreement that if the proposed payment on terms will not be approved by
our Trust Committee, Limketkai should pay in cash, the amount was no longer
subject to the approval or disapproval of the Committee, it is only on the terms.
The record shows that if payment was in cash, either broker Revilla or Aromin had
full authority. But because LSM took advantage of the suggestion of Vice-President
Albano, the matter was sent to higher officials. Immediately upon learning that
payment on terms was frozen and/or denied, Limketkai exercised his right within the
period given to him and tendered payment in full, thus complying with their
agreement. The negotiation or preparation stage started with the authority given by
Philippine Remnants to BPI to sell the lot, followed by the authority given by BPI and
confirmed by Philippine Remnants to broker Revilla to sell the property, the offer to
sell to Limketkai, the inspection of the property and the negotiations with Aromin
and Albano at the BPI offices. The perfection of the contract took place when Aromin
and Albano, acting for BPI, agreed to sell and Alfonso Lim with Albino Limketkai,
acting for LSM, agreed to buy the disputed lot at P1,000/sqm. Aside from this there
was the earlier agreement between LSM and the authorized broker. ANTONIO |
HIPOLITO | IMPERIAL | ZARAGOSA 17 There was a concurrence of offer and
acceptance, on the object, and on the cause thereof.