(1) The property of Dr. Valisno was mortgaged and later redeemed by his minor grandchildren in 1973.
(2) When the land was subjected to land reform, the grandchildren filed for retention as owners despite being minors at the time of redemption.
(3) The court ruled that the redemption was valid until annulled by the aggrieved minors, who never initiated such an action. Therefore, the grandchildren had rights as owners.
Barney K. Huang v. Becky R. French Thomas J. Ziko Bruce R. Poulton Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina North Carolina State University, and Troy A. Doby John N. Gregg, 73 F.3d 357, 4th Cir. (1995)
(1) The property of Dr. Valisno was mortgaged and later redeemed by his minor grandchildren in 1973.
(2) When the land was subjected to land reform, the grandchildren filed for retention as owners despite being minors at the time of redemption.
(3) The court ruled that the redemption was valid until annulled by the aggrieved minors, who never initiated such an action. Therefore, the grandchildren had rights as owners.
(1) The property of Dr. Valisno was mortgaged and later redeemed by his minor grandchildren in 1973.
(2) When the land was subjected to land reform, the grandchildren filed for retention as owners despite being minors at the time of redemption.
(3) The court ruled that the redemption was valid until annulled by the aggrieved minors, who never initiated such an action. Therefore, the grandchildren had rights as owners.
(1) The property of Dr. Valisno was mortgaged and later redeemed by his minor grandchildren in 1973.
(2) When the land was subjected to land reform, the grandchildren filed for retention as owners despite being minors at the time of redemption.
(3) The court ruled that the redemption was valid until annulled by the aggrieved minors, who never initiated such an action. Therefore, the grandchildren had rights as owners.
158314 June 3, 2004 Title issued to children of transferred to the Redemptioner-
SAMAHAN NG Nicolas, Angelito Banting, and Grandchildren in 1973 MAGSASAKA SA SAN Renato Banting > and no longer part of the Valisno JOSEP, represented by Foreclosure of the Mortgage, estate > Thus, as owners, they DOMINADOR MAGLALANG sold to Dr. Valisnos are entitled to v. MARIETTA VALISNO, grandchildren (Maria retention which is granted to all ADELA, Cristina F. Valisno, Leonora landowners > Limit is 5- AQUILES, LEANDRO, Valisno Yujuico, Benedicto hectares, Entire HONORIO, LUMEN, Valisno Yujuico and Redeemed property is 12- NICOLAS, all surnamed Gregorio Valisno Yujuico) thru hectares, Each owner only VALISNO; RANDY V. their parents by redemption retains 3-hectares; WAGNER, MARIA MARTA B. from mortgagees (3) Even if minors in 1973 when VALISNO, (October 25, 1973) ~ Issuance property was redeemed, they NOELITO VALISNO, MARY of title to redemptioners were of legal age ANN L. VALISNO, PHILIP V. (November 26, 1998) > in 1994 when SMSP initiated BRANZUELA and BRENDON Subjection of 57-hectare to the petition for coverage of the V. YUJUICO; MA. CRISTINA expropriation > Memorandum subject VALISNO, (June 14, 1995) by landholding under the CARL, BENEDICTO V. YUJUICO, Provincial Agrarian Reform and in 1997 when all the Valisno GREGORIO V. YUJUICO and Officer that although the heirs filed their LEONORA property had already been Consolidated Application for V. YUJUICO subdivided among the heirs of Retention and Award under RA Facts: The mortgaged property Dr. Valisno, the excess over the 6657 of Dr. Valisno was redeemed by five-hectare >> Art. 1327 that minors are his retention limit could still be incapable of giving consent to a grandchildren who were minors covered (RA 6657) ~ Same contract at the time. When the entire rationale by Secretary >> Art. 1390 that a contract estate was Garilao who subjected the where one of the parties is subjected to CARP, the children property to Comprehensive incapable of giving and grandchildren filed for Agrarian Reform consent is voidable or annullable retention of Program, subject to the retention > not void ab initio 84 property. SMSJ assailed the rights of the heirs > right of the grandchildren to the Consolidated Application >> Requirements for an Action land as owners for Retention and Award under for the Annulment: (1) the because they were just minors. RA 6657 (September 25, 1997) plaintiff must have an However, the defect in the by Valisno heirs interest in the contract; and (2) redemption can only ~ Granted > Oppostion by SMSJ the action must be brought by be assailed by the victims, who ~ that the grandchildren are not the victim and not were the minors themselves, and actually tilling the party responsible for the their lack of nor directly managing the land defect > Art. 1397 that the action action for the annulment of the in question as required by law ~ for the annulment same rendered the voidable Grandchildren of contracts may be instituted by contract valid until not entitled to retention rights as all who are thereby obliged annulled. Hence, they had the landowners due to minority principally or right as owners absent > Valid Redemption by the subsidiarilyCourt before the annulment of their Minors: Lack of Annulment by RTC since a decision in redemption. the Aggrieved Party small claims cases is final > Ownership by Dr. Nicolas (1) Even as the victims or the and unappealable (Sec. 23, Valisno Sr. of 57-hectare aggrieved parties who had the A.M. No. 8-8-7 SC, Rules of property > Mortgage of only right to annul Procedure for Small Claims 12-hectares (October 20, 21, the redemption, the minors Cases). The petition for 1972) by Dr. Valisno in favor of never initiated any action > Why certiorari should be filed Renato and minors are the before the RTC Angelito Banting > Subdivision aggrieved ~ Contract was made conformably to the of the Property to 10 (November for them, not by them; Principle of judicial 8, 1972) ~ (2) Hence, the properties Hierarchy
Barney K. Huang v. Becky R. French Thomas J. Ziko Bruce R. Poulton Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina North Carolina State University, and Troy A. Doby John N. Gregg, 73 F.3d 357, 4th Cir. (1995)