Está en la página 1de 2

Plan vs.

IAC
Facts: Federico, who claims a 1/8 interest in the property, alleged that he was not
notified of the sale of two conjugal lots made by his mother Florencia as
administratrix in the intestate proceeding for his deceased fathers estate, made to
Amorante Plan with the authorization and approcal of the probate court. His mother
had a 5/8 interest in the property.
In the intestate proceeding for the settlement of Regino Bautista's estate, his widow
filed a motion dated December 9, 1964 for authority to sell to Plan the two lots and
theater for not less than P140,000. The purpose was to pay the debts amounting to
P117,220.
On December 22, 1964 Judge Jose B. Jimenez granted the authority to sell to Plan
the entire estate of the deceased for not less than P140, 000 so as to pay the
obligations of the estate "land it appearing that all the heirs have conformed
thereto"
A motion to approve the sale was filed on January 5, 1965. It should be noted that in
1963 the widow and four of her seven children as owners of 7/8 interest in the said
property had, in consideration of P9,600, agreed to sell that same property to Plan
for the same amount of P140,000
Sixteen days after the sale, Federico Bautista filed an "Opposition to Agreement to
Sell Absolute Sale, Project of Partition and Request for Inventory and Accounting of
Estate and for Furnishing of Orders, Notices and Pleadings". Judge Jimenez gave
Federico's counsel ten days within which to interpose any opposition to the project
of partition filed by the administratrix on October 16, 1964 which had not been
acted upon by the court and of which the decedent's six children were notified
through Milagros Bautista.
Federico instituted a separate action to nullify the sale but the court dismissed the
case on the ground that the remedy is in the intestate proceeding and not in a
separate action. Upon appeal to the CA, the CA declared the agreement as void and
also allowed Federico to redeem the said lots even if he did not pray for the
reconveyance of the lots. The reconveyance was based on article 1088 of the Civil
Code.
Issue: WON the CA erred in ordering plan to reconvey the disputed lots to Federico
Held: Yes.
Said judgment is bereft of factual and legal basis. Federico did not pray for
reconveyance in his complaint. He was not the owner of the property in 1964. He
prayed for receivership, for nullification of the agreement to sell and the sale itself

and for the refund by Plan of all the income which he received from the property
from the time he possessed it in the concept of owner.
Article 1088 of the Civil Code does not justify legal redemption in this case because
it refers to sale of hereditary rights, and not to specific properties, for the payment
of the debts of the decedent's estate as to which there is no legal redemption.
"In the administration and liquidation of the estate of a deceased person, sales
ordered by the probate court for payment of debts are final and not subject to legal
redemption. Unlike in ordinary execution sales, there is no legal provision allowing
redemption in the sale of property for payment of debts of a deceased person"
(Abarro vs. De Guia, 72 Phil. 245). Such sale is not the one contemplated in article
1067, now article 1088 of the Civil Code (Vda. de Mendoza, 69 Phil. 155).

También podría gustarte