G.R. No. 175151 - TOBIAS SELGA AND CEFERINA GARANCHO SELGA, VS. SONY ENTIERRO BRAR, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MARINA T. ENTIERRO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises and considerations, the Court hereby renders judgment declaring the annulment of the Deed of Sale with Declaration of heirship dated May 15, 1985 adjudicating ownership of Lot No. 1138-A in the name of [herein respondent] Sony Entierro Brar being one of the legitimate heirs of spouses Francisco Entierro and Basilia Tabile one eleventh (1/11) share and ten eleventh (10/11) share in the name of [herein petitioner] Tobias Selga married to Ceferina Garancho and further orders the following: 1. For the relocation survey of Lot No. 1138-A to establish the definite location of the respective share of the parties, the expenses to be borne by them proportionately to their share; 2. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Negros Occidental is hereby directed to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-134408 and in lieu thereof issue a new transfer certificate of title in the name of Tobias Selga consisting of an area of Thirty[-]Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy[-]Eight (37,778) square meters and another new transfer certificate of title in the name of Sony Entierro Brar consisting of an area of One Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety[-]Nine (1,799) square meters upon submission of an approved subdivision plan; 3. For the [petitioners] to account to [respondent] her share in the produce of the land from May 15, 1985 up to the time that [respondent's] possession of her share of Lot No. 1138-A is restored to her; and, finally, 4. For the [petitioners] to pay [respondent] the sum of P50,000.00 as attorney's fee and to pay the costs of suit. [7] Unsatisfied, respondent filed an appeal of the aforequoted judgment of RTC-Branch 55 before the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 9520A UDK. However, respondent subsequently moved to withdraw her appeal, which the Court of Appeals granted in a Resolution dated June 13, 1997. The Decision dated May 8, 1996 of RTC-Branch 55 eventually attained finality. In a Letter dated August 11, 1997, respondent informed petitioners that she was exercising her right to redeem petitioners' ten-eleventh (10/11) share in the subject property, in accordance with the final and executory Decision dated May 8, 1996 of RTC-Branch 55 in Civil Case No. 276. In their Reply-Letter dated August 20, 1997, petitioners' counsel rejected respondent's demand for the following reasons: Please be informed that your claim re redemption is devoid of complete merit. It must be remembered that in your complaint, you pleaded redemption as one of your causes of action and even specifically sought the same as a prayer in your complaint. However, on the basis of the decision of the Regional Trial Court, dated May 8, 1996, the court did not see fit to grant you the right of redemption. It is the considered view of the undersigned that in line with established jurisprudence, you cannot now or in the future, exercise this right. [8] This prompted respondent to institute on January 21, 1998 a Compla