Scribd
Upload
86 views2 pages

Butte Vs Uy and Sons

The plaintiff, Angela M. Butte, sought to legally redeem a 1/6 undivided share of a property that was sold by Marie GarnierVda. de Ramirez, a co-owner, to Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. in 1958. As a beneficiary under the will of late co-owner Jose V. Ramirez, who died in 1951, Butte claimed the right to redeem the share as his heir. The court held that Butte had the right to redeem the property as she became a co-owner, and thus entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption, from the moment of Jose Ramirez's death in 1951. The presence of a judicial administrator

Uploaded by

Bjmp TEN Ictd
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
86 views2 pages

Butte Vs Uy and Sons

The plaintiff, Angela M. Butte, sought to legally redeem a 1/6 undivided share of a property that was sold by Marie GarnierVda. de Ramirez, a co-owner, to Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. in 1958. As a beneficiary under the will of late co-owner Jose V. Ramirez, who died in 1951, Butte claimed the right to redeem the share as his heir. The court held that Butte had the right to redeem the property as she became a co-owner, and thus entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption, from the moment of Jose Ramirez's death in 1951. The presence of a judicial administrator

Uploaded by

Bjmp TEN Ictd
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ANGELA M. BUTTE vs.

MANUEL UY

September 12, 2016


By Robinson Manaig

Art 42

ANGELA M. BUTTE, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANUEL UY a SONS, INC., defendant-appellee

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 Ramirez. Thea
dministrator 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy