1) Aida Robles sued to cancel land titles and legally redeem properties that originally belonged to her grandfather Eligio Robles and were sold without her consent.
2) Eligio's surviving spouse and 9 other heirs executed a power of attorney to sell the properties, without including Aida as an heir.
3) The properties were sold and new titles issued. Aida sued the buyer and register of deeds. The RTC dismissed but CA remanded to join indispensable parties.
4) The Supreme Court ruled the selling heirs were not indispensable parties to Aida's legal redemption claim against the buyer. It remanded the case back to determine the merits.
1) Aida Robles sued to cancel land titles and legally redeem properties that originally belonged to her grandfather Eligio Robles and were sold without her consent.
2) Eligio's surviving spouse and 9 other heirs executed a power of attorney to sell the properties, without including Aida as an heir.
3) The properties were sold and new titles issued. Aida sued the buyer and register of deeds. The RTC dismissed but CA remanded to join indispensable parties.
4) The Supreme Court ruled the selling heirs were not indispensable parties to Aida's legal redemption claim against the buyer. It remanded the case back to determine the merits.
1) Aida Robles sued to cancel land titles and legally redeem properties that originally belonged to her grandfather Eligio Robles and were sold without her consent.
2) Eligio's surviving spouse and 9 other heirs executed a power of attorney to sell the properties, without including Aida as an heir.
3) The properties were sold and new titles issued. Aida sued the buyer and register of deeds. The RTC dismissed but CA remanded to join indispensable parties.
4) The Supreme Court ruled the selling heirs were not indispensable parties to Aida's legal redemption claim against the buyer. It remanded the case back to determine the merits.
1) Aida Robles sued to cancel land titles and legally redeem properties that originally belonged to her grandfather Eligio Robles and were sold without her consent.
2) Eligio's surviving spouse and 9 other heirs executed a power of attorney to sell the properties, without including Aida as an heir.
3) The properties were sold and new titles issued. Aida sued the buyer and register of deeds. The RTC dismissed but CA remanded to join indispensable parties.
4) The Supreme Court ruled the selling heirs were not indispensable parties to Aida's legal redemption claim against the buyer. It remanded the case back to determine the merits.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
ROBLES vs CA (83 SCRA 180)
Deeds allowed the power of attorney to be registered
as a declaration of heirship, petitioner sued respondent-vendee and the Register of Deeds for the cancellation of titles and for legal redemption.
Facts: Petitioner Aida Robles is the granddaughter of the deceased Eligio Robles (being the child of Eligios deceased son Jose). In his lifetime, Eligio registered his title to Lot No. 1304 (LOT 1) with an area of 4.2038 hectares of the Escalante Cadastre and the certificate of title thereto was issued in his name and that of his wife Melania Cuaycong. Eligio had also started registration proceedings for another lot, No. 1305-A (LOT 2) with an area of 5.8685 hectares and after his death, title thereto was issued in the name of his surviving spouse and in the name of "the heirs of Eligio Robles." These two properties pertaining to the conjugal estate of Eligio and Melania constitute the disputed properties at bar. Then, Melania as surviving spouse and nine other children who were the deceaseds heirs to the extent of 43/44 executed a general power of attorney in favor of Francisco (a son) to alienate and encumber the disputed properties, reciting therein that the signatories are the owners of the properties, although they were not joined by petitioner Aida who is also an heir of the deceaseds estate to the extent of 1/44.
When the disputed properties were sold and a new
transfer titles to the whole of said properties were issued to the respondent-vendee after the Register of
RTC: dismissed the complaint.
CA: held that the vendors (the other co-heirs)
were indispensable parties and remanded the case to the lower court so that the petitioner can be required to implead the indispensable and necessary parties in the case and for subsequent hearing for the issuance of a new judgment.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners co-heirs are indispensable
parties The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners co-heirs who sold the properties to respondent-vendee are not indispensble parties and the action filed by the petitioner could be completely adjudicated even without them, much more so with regard to her action as co-heir for legal redemption of the properties from said respondent-vendee under Article 1088 of the Civil Code. Insofar as the exercise of such right of redemption is concerned, petitioner as a co-heir and respondent Parreo as the buyer are the only indispensable parties to the exclusion of the sellers-coheirs.
