Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4


G.R. No. 75884
September 24, 1987

FACTS: 2 parcels of land under 1 TCT are owned by alfredo and when he died, his wife julita go ong was
appointed administratrix of his estate. Julita thereafter mortgaged 1 lot to Allied Banking Corp. to secure
a loan obtained by JK Exports, annotated as a lien on the original TCT, with the following notation:
“mortgagee’s consent necessary in case of subsequent alienation or encumbrance of the property…”
On the loan there was due a sum and Allied tried to collect it from Julita. Hence, the complaint alleging
nullity of the contract for lack of judicial approval which the bank had allegedly promised to secure from
the court. In response thereto, the bank averred that it was Julita who promised to secure the court’s
Trial court ruled for Julita, stating that the contract is valid. CA affirmed with modification the lower
court’s decision
HELD: contract is valid
Petitioner, asserting that the mortgage is void for want of judicial approval, quoted Section 7 of Rule 89
of the Rules of Court . The CA aptly ruled that Section 7 of Rule 89 of the Rules of Court is not applicable,
since the mortgage was constituted in her personal capacity and not in her capacity as administratrix of
the estate of her husband. Sec. 7, Art. 89 of the Civil Code applies in a case where judicial approval has
to be sought in connection with, for instance, the sale or mortgage of property under administration for
the payment, say of a conjugal debt, and even here, the conjugal and hereditary shares of the wife are
excluded from the requisite judicial approval for the reason already adverted to hereinabove, provided
of course no prejudice is caused others, including the government.
Consequently, in the case at bar, the trial court and the CA cannot be faulted in ruling that the
questioned mortgage constituted on the property under administration, by authority of the petitioner, is
valid, notwithstanding the lack of judicial approval, with respect to her conjugal share and to her
hereditary rights.
Petitioner cited cases arguing that in the settlement proceedings of the estate of the deceased spouse,
the entire conjugal partnership property of the marriage is under administration. While such may be in a
sense true, that fact alone is not sufficient to invalidate the whole mortgage, willingly and voluntarily
entered into by the petitioner. Under similar circumstances, this Court applied the provisions of Article
493 of the Civil Code, where the heirs as co-owners shall each have the full ownership of his part and the
fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even
effect of the alienation or mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which
may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership
The reference to judicial approval in Sec. 7, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court cannot adversely affect
the substantive rights of private respondent to dispose of her Ideal [not inchoate, for the conjugal
partnership ended with her husband’s death, and her hereditary rights accrued from the moment of the
death of the decedent (Art. 777, Civil Code) share in the co-heirship and/or co-ownership formed
between her and the other heirs/co-owners (See Art. 493, Civil Code, supra.).
ANGELA M. BUTTE, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANUEL UY a SONS, INC., defendant-

Facts: Jose V. Ramirez, during his lifetime, was a co-owner of a house and lot located
at Sta. Cruz, Manila. Other owners are Marie GarnierVda. de Ramirez, 1/6; José V.
Ramirez, 1/6; José E. Ramirez, 1/6; Belen T. Ramirez, 1/6; Rita De Ramirez, 1/6; and
José Ma. Ramirez, 1/6.

On October 20, 1951. José V. Ramirez died. Subsequently, Special Proceeding No.
15026 was instituted to settle his estate, that included the one-sixth (1/6) undivided
share in the aforementioned property. His last will and testament has been admitted to
probate, wherein he bequeathed his estate to his children and grandchildren and one-
third (1/3) of the free portion to Mrs. Angela M. Butte, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff-
appellant. The Bank of the Philippine Islands was appointed judicial administrator.

Meanwhile, on December 9, 1958, Mrs. Marie GarnierVda. de Ramirez, one of the co-
owners of the late José V. Ramirez in the Sta. Cruz property, sold her undivided 1/6
share to Manuel Uy& Sons, Inc., defendant-appellee herein, for the sum of
P500,000.00. After the execution an affidavit to the effect that formal notices of the sale
had been sent to all possible redemptioners, the deed of sale was duly registered and
the old TCT was cancelled in lieu of which a new one was issued in the name of the
vendee and the other-co-owners.

On the same day (December 9, 1958), Manuel Uya l Son Inc. sent a letter to the Bank
of the Philippine Islands as judicial administrator of the estate of the late José V.
Ramirez informing it of the above-mentioned sale. This letter, together with that of the
bank, was forwarded by the latter to Mrs. Butte.

On January 15, 1959, Mrs. Angela M. Butte, sent a letter and a Philippine National Bank
cashier’s check in the amount of P500,000.00 to Manuel Uy a l Sons, Inc. offering to
redeem share sold by Mrs. Marie GarnierVda. de Ramirez. This tender having been
refused, plaintiff on the same day consigned the amount in court and filed the
corresponding action for legal redemption. Without prejudice to the determination by the
court of the reasonable and fair market value of the property sold which she alleged to
be grossly excessive, plaintiff prayed for conveyance of the property, and for actual,
moral and exemplary damages.

May 13, 1959, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.

Issue: WON the plaintiff in the case at bar has a right to redeem the property
Held: By law, the rights to the succession of a deceased person are transmitted to his
heirs from the moment of his death, and the right of succession includes all property,
rights and obligations that survive the decedent so from the instant of Jose Ramirez’
death, his heirs became co-owners of an undivided share and co-owner of the whole
property thus they became entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption as soon as
another co-owner has sold his undivided share to a stranger. The presence of
the judicial administrator is of no moment because the rights of the administrator of
possession and administration of the real and personal estate of the deceased do not
include the right of legal redemption of the undivided share sold to Manuel Uy and Sons
because the right to redeem only
came into existence when the sale was perfected 8 years from the death of Jose Ramir
ez. Theadministrator cannot exercise the right of redemption since the land was sold
AFTER the death of Ramirez. The administrator may exercise the right to redeem only if
the right pertains to the estate, and this can only happen if the sale of said portion to Uy
was done before the death of Ramirez.