Flashcards in G.R. No. 186269 February 2012 (Spouses Pascual et. al. v Spouses Ballesteros) Deck (15):
Who are the petitioners of this case?
This case is filed by the spouses Roman A. Pascual and Mercedita Pascual (Spouses Pascual), Francisco A. Pascual, Margarita Corazon D. Mariano, Edwin D. Mariano, and Danny R. Mariano.
Who are the respondents of this case?
Antonio Ballesteros and Lorenza Melchor-Ballesteros (Ballesteros Spouses)
What was the case all about?
The instant case involves a 1,539 square meter parcel of land (subject property) situated in Barangay Sta. Maria, Laoag Cityand covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-30375 of the Laoag City registry
Who are the owner of this parcel of land and their corresponding shares?
The subject property is owned by the following persons, with the extent of their respective shares over the same: (1) the spouses Albino and Margarita Corazon Mariano, 330 square meters; (2) Angela Melchor (Angela), 466.5 square meters; and (3) the spouses Melecio and Victoria Melchor (Spouses Melchor), 796.5 square meters.
Who inherited the Melchor's share upon the death of the spouses Melchor?
The property was inherited by their daughter - Lorenza Melchor Ballesteros.
How did Lorenza and her husband Antonio acquire Angela's share?
By virtue of an Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale.
To whom did Margarita, together with her children, sell the property when she become widow?
Spouses Pascual and Francisco
What was the claim of the petitioners?
They claim that there's no co-ownership over the subject property considering the shares of the registered owners. Hence the respondents have no right to redeem the portion of the subject property that was sold to them.
What was the decision of RTC?
RTC dismissed the petition.
What was the RTC's summary for the issues raised?
(1) whether the respondents herein and the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners are co-owners of the subject property who have the right of redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code; and (2) if so, whether that right was seasonably exercised by the respondents within the 30-day redemption period under Article 1623 of the Civil Code.
What was the ruling of RTC on the first issue raised?
The RTC held that the respondents and the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners are co-owners of the subject property considering that the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence showing that the respective shares of each of the registered owners thereof were indeed particularized, specified and subdivided.
What was the ruling of RTC on the second issue raised?
The RTC ruled that the respondents failed to seasonably exercise their right of redemption within the 30-day period pursuant to Article 1623 of the Civil Code. Notwithstanding the lack of a written notice of the sale of a portion of the subject property to Spouses Pascual and Francisco, the RTC asserted that the respondents had actual notice of the said sale. Failing to exercise their right of redemption within 30 days from actual notice of the said sale, the RTC opined that the respondents can no longer seek for the redemption of the property as against the petitioners.
What was the ruling of RTC?
The appeal of the respondents was GRANTED and the appealed January 31, 2007 Decision is, accordingly, REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, another is entered approving [respondents] legal redemption of the portion in litigation. The rest of their monetary claims were, however, DENIED for lack of factual and/or legal bases.
What was the issue?
Whether or not, RTC seriously committed grave abuse of discretion.