No. L-55076. September 21,1987.

* that all of them acquiesced in the act of redeeming

MATILDE S. PALICTE, petitioner, vs. HON. property for the estate. The petitioner contends that
JOSE O. RAMOLETE as Presiding Judge of the administrator and the three other heirs agreed to
Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch III, and the redemption. There is, however, no clear proof of
such approval. What is beyond dispute from the
MARCELO SOTTO, Administrator, respondents.
records is that they did not disapprove nor reprobate
Civil Law; Mortgage; Redemption; Successor- the acts of the
in-interest, concept of.—Magno v. Viola and Sotto (61 134
Phil. 80, 84-85) states that: "The rule is that the term
'successor in interest' includes one to whom the debtor
13 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
has transferred his statutory right of redemption (Big 4 ANNOTATED
Sespe Oil Co. v. Cochran, 276 Fed., 216, 223); one to Palicte vs. Ramolete
whom the debtor has conveyed his interest in the petitioner. There is likewise nothing in the
property for the purpose of redemption records to indicate that the redemption was not
______________ beneficial to the estate of Don Filemon Sotto.
Same; Same; Same; Interest of the heir in the
*
 THIRD DIVISION;
preservation of the estate and recovery of property is
133 definitely more than the administrator's interests—
lt may be true that the interest of a specific heir is not
VOL. 154, SEPTEMBER 21. 1987 yet fixed and determinate pending the order of
Palicte vs. Ramolete distribution but, nonetheless, the heir's interest in the
(Southern California Lumber Co. v. McDowell, preservation of the estate and the recovery of its
105 CAL. 99; 38 Pac., 627; Simpson v. Castle, 52 properties is greater than anybody else's, definitely
Cal., 644; Schumacher v. Langford, 20 Cal. App., 61; more than the administrator's who merely holds it for
127 Pac., 1057); one who succeeds to the interest of the creditors, the heirs, and the legatees.
the debtor by operation of law (XI McKinney's Same; Same; Same; Persons with inchoate or
California Jurisprudence, 99); one or more joint contingent interest were allowed to exercise the right
debtors who were joint owners of the property sold of redemption as successor-ininterest, like a son who
(Emerson v. Yosemite Gold Min. etc. Co. , 149 Cal., redeemed the property of his parents sold on
50; 85 Pac., 122); the wife as regards her husband's execution—The petitioner cites precedents where
homestead by reason of the fact that some portion of persons with inchoate or contingent interest were
her husband's title passes to her (Hefner v. Urton, 71 allowed to exercise the right of redemption as
Cal., 479; 12 Pac., 486). "successors-in-interest," e.g. Director of Lands v.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A legitimate heir to Lagniton (103 Phil 889, 892) where a son redeemed
the decedent qualifies as a successor-in-interest, who the property of his parents sold on execution
can redeem the property sold subject to redemption.— and Rosete v. Provincial Sheriff of Zambales (95 Phil.
ln the case at bar, petitioner Palicte is the daughter of 560, 564), where a wife by virtue of what the Court
the late Don Filemon Sotto whose estate was levied called "inchoate right of dower or contingent interest"
upon on execution to satisfy the money judgment redeemed a homestead as successor-in-interest of her
against it. She is one of the declared heirs in Special husband.
Proceeding No. 2706-R. As a legitimate heir, she Same; Same; Same; Same; Estate of the
qualifies as a successor-in-interest. deceased is the judgment debtor and the heirs who
Same; Same; Same; Heirs are allowed to will eventually acquire the estate should not be
redeem redeemable properties despite the presence of prohibited from preserving the properties.—The lower
an administrator.—At the moment of the decedent's court, therefore. erred in considering the person of the
death, the heirs start to own the property, subject to administrator as the judgment debtor and as the only
the decedent s liabilities. In fact, they may dispose of "successor-in-interest." The estate of the deceased is
the same even while the property is under the judgment debtor and the heirs who will eventually
administration, (Barretto v. Tuason, 59 Phil. 845; acquire that estate should not be prohibited from doing
Jakosalem v. Rafols, 73 Phil. 628). If the heirs may their share in its preservation.
dispose of their shares in the decedent's property even Same; Same; Same; Same; Although there was
while it is under administration, with more reason valid redemption of the properties by the successor in
should the heirs be allowed to redeem redeemable interest, her motion to transfer the titles of the
properties despite the presence of an administrator. properties covered by the deed of redemption from
Same; Same; Same; Prior approval by the other registration in the name of her father to her name
co-heirs, the administrator and the intestate court to cannot yet prosper as it would amount to a
the redemption of the disputed properties not needed, distribution of the estate.—Although petitioner Palicte
as what is necessary is that all of them acquiesced in validly redeemed the properties, her motion to transfer
the act of redeeming the, property; No showing that the titles of the four (4) parcels of land covered by the
the redemption was not beneficial to the estate.— Deed of Redemption from registration in the name of
The respondents contend that the petitioner must Filemon Sotto to her name cannot prosper at this time.
positively prove that the three other coheirs, the Otherwise, to allow such transfer of title would
administrator, and the intestate court had expressly amount to a distribution of the estate.
agreed to the redemption of the disputed parcels of 135
land. We see no need for such prior approval. While it
VOL. 154, SEPTEMBER 21, 1987
may have been desirable, it is not indispensable under
the circumstances of this case. What is important is Palicte vs. Ramolete
 Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The other Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four
heirs are given a six months period to join as co- (44,644) square meters more or less;
redemptioners in the redemption made by the 3. 7.Residential House of strong materials,
successor in interest before the motion to transfer situated on a Government lot at Lahug,
titles to her name may be granted.—The other heirs Cebu City;
are, therefore, given a six months period to join as co-
4. 8.Residential House of strong materials,
redemptioners in the redemption made by the
petitioner before the motion to transfer titles to the situated at Central, Cebu City." (Rollo, p.
latter's name may be granted. 40)

PETITION for certiorari to review the order of Seven of the above-described properties were
the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Br. III. awarded to Pilar Teves, who alone bid for them
Ramolete, J. for the amount of P217,300.00.
The residential house situated on a
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. government lot at Lahug, Cebu City, was
awarded to lone bidder Asuncion Villarante for
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: the amount of P10,000.00
Within the period for redemption, petitioner
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Matilde S. Palicte, as one of the heirs of the late
order of the then Court of First Instance of Cebu Don Filemon Sotto, redeemed from purchaser
declaring the deed of redemption executed for the Pilar Teves, four (4) lots for the sum of
petitioner null and void and denying the P60,000.00.
petitioner's motion that the Registrar of Deeds of A deed of redemption dated July 29, 1980,
the City of Cebu be directed to transfer the executed by Deputy Provincial Sheriff Felipe V.
Owner's Duplicate Certificates of Title to Lot Belandres and approved by the Clerk of Court,
Nos. 1049, 1051, and 1052 from Filemon Sotto to Esperanza Garcia as Ex-Officio Sheriff, was
her and to issue a new Owner's Duplicate issued for these lots:
Certificate of Title to Lot 2179-C in her name.
On July 5, 1979, a sale at public auction was 1. "1.A parcel of land or Lot No. 2179-C-
held pursuant to a writ of execution issued on PDI-25027 Cebu Cadastre, Cebu City,
February 5, 1979 by the respondent judge and to a bid at P20,000.00;
court order dated June 4, 1979 in the case of Pilar 2. 2.A parcel of land or Lot No. 1052,
Teves, et al. v. Marcelo Sotto, Administrator, covered by TCT No. 27642, of the
Civil Case No. R-10027, for the satisfaction of Banilad Friar Lands Estate, Cebu City,
judgment in the amount of P725,270.00. bid at P15,000.00;
The following properties belonging to the late 3. 3.A parcel of land or Lot No. 1051,
Don Filemon Sotto and administered by covered by TCT No. 27641, of the
respondent Marcelo Sotto were levied upon: Banilad Friar Lands Estate, Cebu City, at
P5.000.00;
1. "1.Parcel of land on Lot No. 1049, 4. 4.A parcel of land or Lot No. 1049,
covered by TCT No. 27640 of the covered by TCT No. 27640, of the
Banilad Friar Lands Estate, Cebu City Banilad Friar Lands Estate, Cebu City, at
2. 2.Parcel of land on Lot No. 1052, covered P20,000.00." (Rollo, p. 42)
by TCT No. 27642 of the Banilad Friar
Lands Estate, Cebu City; On July 24, 1980, petitioner Palicte filed a motion
3. 3.Parcel of land on Lot No. 1051, covered with respondent Judge Ramolete for the transfer
by TCT No. 27641 of the Banilad Friad to her name of the titles to the four (4) parcels of
Lands E state, Cebu City; land covered by the deed of redemption.
4. 4.Parcel of land on Lot No. 5253 of the 137
Cebu Cadastre, Cebu City, covered by VOL. 154, SEPTEMBER 21, 1987
TCT No. 27639; Palicte vs. Ramolete
This motion was opposed by the plaintiffs in Civil
136
Case No. R-10027, entitled "Pilar Teves, et al. v.
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Marcelo Sotto, administrator" on several grounds,
Palicte vs. Ramolete principal among which, is that movant, Palicte, is
not one of those authorized to redeem under the
1. 5.Parcel of land situated at Mantalongon, provisions of the Rules of Court.
Dalaguete, Cebu, covered by TD No. A hearing on the said motion, with both
010661, with an area of .76-708; (sic) parties adducing evidence was held.
2. 6.Parcel of land on Lot No. 4839 of the The lower court held that although Palicte is
Opon Cadastre, at Barrio Sa-ac, Mactan one of the declared heirs in Spl. Proc. No. 2706-
Island, with an area of Forty Four R, she does not qualify as a successor-in-interest
who may redeem the real properties sold. It ruled
that the deed of redemption is null and void. The 1. "(a)The judgment debtor, or his successor in
motion of Palicte was denied. interest in the whole or any part of the
Hence, the present petition. property;
The petitioner raises the following assignment 2. "(b)A creditor having a lien by attachment,
judgment or mortgage on the property sold,
of errors:
or on some part thereof, subsequent to the
A
judgment under which the property was sold.
"RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN RULING Such redeeming creditor is termed a
THAT THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR ENTITLED TO redemptioner."
REDEEM UNDER SECTION 29(a), RULE 39 OF
THE REVISED RULES OF COURT REAL Under Subsection (a), property sold subject to
PROPERTY SOLD ON EXECUTION AGAINST redemption may be redeemed by the judgment
THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT IS ONLY THE debtor or his successor-ininterest in the whole or
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE, OR HIS any part of the property. Does Matilde Palicte fall
SUCCESSOR-ININTEREST, within the term 'successor-in-interest"?
Magno v. Viola and Sotto (61 Phil 80, 84-85)
B states that:
"The rule is that the term 'successor-in-interest'
"RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN RULING
includes one to whom the debtor has transferred his
THAT PETITIONER, WHO IS A DECLARED HEIR
statutory right of redemption (Big Sespe Oil Co. v.
OF THE DECEDENT, IS NOT THE JUDGMENT
Cochran, 276 Fed., 216, 223); one to whom the debtor
DEBTOR NOR DOES SHE QUALIFY AS A
has conveyed his interest in the property for the
SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF THE
purpose of redemption (Southern California Lumber
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE ENTITLED
Co. v. McDowell, 105 Cal., 99; 38 Pac., 627; Simpson
TO RIGHT OF REDEMPTION UNDER SECTION
v. Castle, 52 Cal., 644; Schumacher v. Langford, 20
29(a), RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
Cal. App., 61; 127 Pac., 1057); one who succeeds to
the interest of the debtor by operation of law (XI
C
McKinney's California
"RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN RULING 139
THAT ALTHOUGH PETITIONER IS A VOL. 154, SEPTEMBER 21, 1987
DECLARED HEIR OF THE DECEDENT, HER
Palicte vs. Ramolete
RIGHT TO THE ESTATE, LIKE THAT OF
REDEMPTION OF CERTAIN ESTATE Jurisprudence, 99); one or more joint debtors who
PROPERTY, COULD ONLY ARISE AFTER were joint owners of the property sold (Emerson v.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE AS Yosemite Gold Min. etc. Co., 149 Cal., 50; 85 Pac.,
122); the wife as regards her husband's homestead by
138 reason of the fact that some portion of her husband'
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED title passes to her (Hefner v. Urton, 71 Cal., 479; 12
Palicte vs. Ramolete Pac., 486). This court has held that a surety can not
redeem the property of the principal sold on execution
THERE IS STILL JUDGMENT DEBT
because the surety, by paying the debt of the principal,
CHARGEABLE AGAINST THE ESTATE.
stands in the place of the creditor, not of the debtor,
D and consequently is not a successor in interest in the
property. (G. Urruitia & Co. v. Moreno and Reyes, 28
RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN RULING Phil., 260, 268)." (Italics supplied).
THAT PETITIONER'S REDEMPTION OF FOUR In the case at bar, petitioner Palicte is the
(4) PARCELS OF LAND OF THE ESTATE OF THE
daughter of the late Don Filemon Sotto whose
DECEDENT SOLD ON EXECUTION OF
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ESTATE IS NULL
estate was levied upon on execution to satisfy the
AND VOID AND INEFFECTIVE." (Rollo, pp. 17- money judgment against it. She is one of the
18) declared heirs in Special Proceeding No. 2706-R.
As a legitimate heir, she qualifies as a successor-
These assigned errors center on whether or not in-interest.
petitioner Palicte may validly exercise the right of Art. 777 of the Civil Code states that:
redemption under Sec.. 29, Rule 39 of the Rules "The rights to the succession are transmitted from the
of Court. moment of the death of the decedent.''
We answer in the affirmative. Sec. 29 of Rule
39 provides: At the moment of the decedent's death, the heirs
"SEC. 29. Who may redeem real property so sold.— start to own the property. subject to the decedent's
Real property sold as provided in the last preceding liabilities. In fact, they may dispose of the same
section, or any part thereof sold separately, may be even while the property is under administration.
redeemed in the manner hereinafter provided, by the (Barretto v. Tuason, 59 Phil. 845; Jakosalem v.
following persons: Rafols, 73 Phil. 628). If the heirs may dispose of
their shares in the decedent's property even while
it is under administration. with more reason
should the heirs be allowed to redeem redeemable
properties despite the presence of an the four (4) parcels of land covered by the Deed
administrator. of Redemption from registration in the name of
The respondents contend that the petitioner Filemon Sotto to her name cannot prosper at this
must positively prove that the three other co- time.
heirs, the administrator, and the intestate court 141
had expressly agreed to the redemption of the VOL. 154, SEPTEMBER 21, 1987
disputed parcels of land. We see no need for such Palicte vs. Ramolete
prior approval While it may have been desirable, Otherwise, to allow such transfer of title would
it is not indispensable under the circumstances of amount to a distribution of the estate.
this case. What is important is that all of them As held in the case of Philippine Commercial
acquiesced in the act of redeeming property f or and Industrial Bank v. Escolin (56 SCRA 267,
the estate. The petitioner contends that the 345-346):
administrator and the three other heirs agreed to "Indeed, the law on the matter is specific, categorical
the redemption. There is, however, no clear proof and unequivocal Section 1 of Rule 90 provides:
of such approval. What is beyond "SECTION 1. When order for distribution of
140 residue made.—When the debts, funeral charges, and
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED expenses of administration, the allowance to the
widow, and inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the
Palicte vs. Ramolete
estate in accordance with law, have been paid, the
dispute from the records is that they did not court, on the application of the executor or
disapprove nor reprobate the acts of the administrator, or of a person interested in the estate,
petitioner. There is likewise nothing in the and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the residue
records to indicate that the redemption was not of the estate to the persons entitled to the same,
beneficial to the estate of Don Filemon Sotto. naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which
It may be true that the interest of a specific each is entitled, and such persons may demand and
heir is not yet fixed and determinate pending the recover their respective shares from the executor or
order of distribution but, nonetheless, the heir's administrator, or any other person having the same in
interest in the preservation of the estate and the his possession. If there is a controversy before the
court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased
recovery of its properties is greater than anybody
person or as to the distributive shares to which each
else's, definitely more than the administrator's person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall
who merely holds it for the creditors, the heirs, be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.
and the legatees. "No distribution shall be allowed until the payment
The petitioner cites precedents where persons of the obligations above mentioned has been made or
with inchoate or contingent interest were allowed provided for, unless the distributees, or any of them,
to exercise the right of redemption as "successors- give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court,
in-interest," e.g. Director of Lands v. conditioned for the payment of said obligations within
Lagniton (103 Phil. 889, 892) where a son such time as the court directs.
redeemed the property of his parents sold on "These provisions cannot mean anything less than
execution and Rosete v. Provincial Sheriff of that in order that a proceeding for the settlement of the
estate of a deceased may be deemed ready for final
Zambales (95 Phil. 560, 564), where a wife by
closure, (1) there should have been issued already an
virtue of what the Court called "inchoate right of order of distribution or assignment of the estate of the
dower or contingent interest" redeemed a decedent among or to those entitled thereto by will or
homestead as successor-in-interest of her by law, but (2) such order shall not be issued until
husband. after it is shown that the 'debts, funeral expenses,
In fact, the Court was explicit in Lagniton that: expenses of administration, allowances, taxes, etc.,
"x x x The right of a son, with respect to the property chargeable to the estate' have been paid, which is but
of a father or mother, is also an inchoate or contingent logical and proper, (3) besides, such an order is
interest, because upon the death of the father or the usually issued upon proper and specific application for
mother or both, he will have a right to inherit said the purpose of the interested party or parties, and not
conjugal property. If any holder of an inchoate interest of the court.''
is a successor in interest with right to redeem a
property sold on execution, then the son is such a The other heirs are, therefore, given a six months
successor in interest, as he has an inchoate right to the period to join as co-redemptioners in the
property of his father," redemption made by the petitioner before the
motion to transfer titles to the latter's name may
The lower court, therefore, erred in considering be granted.
the person of the administrator as the judgment 142
debtor and as the only "successor-in-interest." 142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTAT
The estate of the deceased is the judgment debtor
Villanueva vs. Castañeda, Jr.
and the heirs who will eventually acquire that
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
estate should not be prohibited from doing their
GRANTED. The respondent court's orders
share in its preservation.
declaring the deed of redemption null and void
Although petitioner Palicte validly redeemed
and denying the motion to transfer title over the
the properties, her motion to transfer the titles of
redeemed properties to Matilde Palicte are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, subject to the right
of the other heirs to join in the redemption as
stated above.
SO ORDERED.
     Fernan (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin an
d Cortés, JJ., concur.
Petition granted. Orders reversed and set
aside.