Araneta v Montelibano

(The case is a bit weird, umiikot siya and a bit contradicting but I think the doctrine in the last part is the most impt.) Facts: -Land located on Malisburg, barrio of Tansa, Municipality of Saravia (Occidental Negros) -Aniceto Montelibano sold to Hermenegildo Araneta the land with right to repurchase after a period of 4 years -Aniceto died, leaving 4 minor children, Braulio Montelibano became “duly appointed tutor” of the minors -Aniceto did not repurchase land within the prescribed time. The terms of the contract required that failure to purchase within the prescribed time, then Aniceto should then execute and deliver an absolute deed for the land. -Original action was brought by Felix Araneta as administrator of the estate of Hermenegildo. Agaton Araneto took over when Felix Araneta. -Braulio’s answer: land was not in his possession and it was sold by Aniceto to Leon Lopez with consent of Hermenegildo. And that the land was not in the inventory of property of Aniceto. -Evidences were introduced including letters of demand for the payment of the land and the court’s findings were: The contract was pursued without repurchasing causing the land to be conveyed and a deed to be executed. Aniceto continued to occupy the land under a contract of lease. The land was eventually conveyed to Leon Lopez during the lifetime of both parties and was occupied by him until the present. Hermenegildo should have known the transfer and the land was in fact not included in the inventory and that none of that property came into the hands of the tutor of the minor heirs of Aniceto Montelibano. Issue: Can and administrator be compelled to execute a contract for the conveyance of the land given the facts of the case? Held: No. Needs to include all heirs, remanded to lower courts. “For the reason, therefore, that all of the heirs of the said Aniceto Montelibano were not made parties in the present action, the judgment of the lower court is hereby revoked and the cause is hereby remanded to the lower court, with permission on the part of the plaintiff to amend his complaint.” Ratio: -Transfer was made with consent of Hermenegildo. -After the conveyance, Lopez took over the debt of the unpaid balance of the 6000 purchase price.

-The plaintiff did not show proof that the indebtedness was never paid due to the long lapse of time and lack of evidence. -An action for the specific recovery of the possession of real property must be brought against the one who is actually or constructively in possession of the same. -Proof shows clearly that the defendants never had possession of the land in question, and that they had never made any claim whatsoever to said property. - “It would seem clear that the present action not be concluded without having all of the heirs in court.” -I THINK THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART (prior part seemed evidentiary): - Under the provisions of article 661 of the Civil Code, the heirs, by virtue of the right of succession, are subrogated to all the rights and obligations of the deceased. The heirs are more than the continuation of the juridical personality of their predecessor in interest. (Decision of the supreme court of Spain, January 28, 1892; Mojica vs. Fernandez, 9 Phil. Rep., 403.) -The heirs having succeeded to whatever interest their ancestry had in the land and contract in question, they may, by virtue of articles 1279 and 1280 of the Civil Code, be compelled in a proper action to execute the public instrument required under the contract between their ancestor and Araneta. (Mojica vs. Fernandez, 9 Phil. Rep., 403.) -All of the heirs were not made parties defendant in the present action. -A part of them can not be required to execute the document prayed for by the plaintiff. They must all be made parties defendant. They are all equally interested