G.R. No.
158314 June 3, 2004 Title issued to children of
SAMAHAN NG
MAGSASAKA SA SAN
JOSEP, represented by
DOMINADOR MAGLALANG
v. MARIETTA VALISNO,
ADELA,
AQUILES, LEANDRO,
HONORIO, LUMEN,
NICOLAS, all surnamed
VALISNO; RANDY V.
WAGNER, MARIA MARTA B.
VALISNO,
NOELITO VALISNO, MARY
ANN L. VALISNO, PHILIP V.
BRANZUELA and BRENDON
V. YUJUICO; MA. CRISTINA
VALISNO,
BENEDICTO V. YUJUICO,
GREGORIO V. YUJUICO and
LEONORA
V. YUJUICO
Facts: The mortgaged property
of Dr. Valisno was redeemed by
his
grandchildren who were minors
at the time. When the entire
estate was
subjected to CARP, the children
and grandchildren filed for
retention of
property. SMSJ assailed the
right of the grandchildren to the
land as owners
because they were just minors.
However, the defect in the
redemption can only
be assailed by the victims, who
were the minors themselves, and
their lack of
action for the annulment of the
same rendered the voidable
contract valid until
annulled. Hence, they had the
right as owners absent
annulment of their
redemption.
> Ownership by Dr. Nicolas
Valisno Sr. of 57-hectare
property > Mortgage of
12-hectares (October 20, 21,
1972) by Dr. Valisno in favor of
Renato and
Angelito Banting > Subdivision
of the Property to 10 (November
8, 1972) ~
transferred to the Redemptioner-
Nicolas, Angelito Banting, and
Renato Banting >
Foreclosure of the Mortgage,
sold to Dr. Valisnos
grandchildren (Maria
Cristina F. Valisno, Leonora
Valisno Yujuico, Benedicto
Valisno Yujuico and
Gregorio Valisno Yujuico) thru
their parents by redemption
from mortgagees
(October 25, 1973) ~ Issuance
of title to redemptioners
(November 26, 1998) >
Subjection of 57-hectare to
expropriation > Memorandum
(June 14, 1995) by
Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer that although the
property had already been
subdivided among the heirs of
Dr. Valisno, the excess over the
five-hectare
retention limit could still be
covered (RA 6657) ~ Same
rationale by Secretary
Garilao who subjected the
property to Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform
Program, subject to the retention
rights of the heirs >
Consolidated Application
for Retention and Award under
RA 6657 (September 25, 1997)
by Valisno heirs
~ Granted > Oppostion by SMSJ
~ that the grandchildren are not
actually tilling
nor directly managing the land
in question as required by law ~
Grandchildren
not entitled to retention rights as
landowners due to minority
> Valid Redemption by the
Minors: Lack of Annulment by
the Aggrieved Party
(1) Even as the victims or the
aggrieved parties who had the
only right to annul
the redemption, the minors
never initiated any action > Why
minors are the
aggrieved ~ Contract was made
for them, not by them;
(2) Hence, the properties
Grandchildren in 1973
and no longer part of the Valisno
estate > Thus, as owners, they
are entitled to
retention which is granted to all
landowners > Limit is 5-
hectares, Entire
Redeemed property is 12-
hectares, Each owner only
retains 3-hectares;
(3) Even if minors in 1973 when
property was redeemed, they
were of legal age
in 1994 when SMSP initiated
the petition for coverage of the
subject
landholding under the CARL,
and in 1997 when all the Valisno
heirs filed their
Consolidated Application for
Retention and Award under RA
6657
>> Art. 1327 that minors are
incapable of giving consent to a
contract
>> Art. 1390 that a contract
where one of the parties is
incapable of giving
consent is voidable or annullable
> not void ab initio
84
>> Requirements for an Action
for the Annulment: (1) the
plaintiff must have an
interest in the contract; and (2)
the action must be brought by
the victim and not
the party responsible for the
defect > Art. 1397 that the action
for the annulment
of contracts may be instituted by
all who are thereby obliged
principally or
subsidiarilyCourt before the
RTC since a decision in
small claims cases is final
and unappealable (Sec. 23,
A.M. No. 8-8-7 SC, Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims
Cases). The petition for
certiorari should be filed
before the RTC
conformably to the
Principle of judicial
Hierarchy