Cabrera v. Villanueva
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Erlinda O. Cabrera and private respondent Victoriana E. Villanueva were co-owners of a property in Manila. On March 12, 1968, Feliciano Oropesa and Antonio Oropesa, co-owners, sold their 28/112 share pro indiviso to Victoriana E. Villanueva for P12,000.00 each, totaling P12,000.00. Subsequently, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 96437 was issued in the name of Villanueva for the 28/112 share. A Joint Affidavit dated April 1, 1968, executed by Feliciano and Antonio Oropesa, attested that they had notified their co-owners in writing of the sale and that no objection was raised. Years later, on September 23, 1980, Villanueva, through her counsel, proposed a partition of the property to Cabrera. Cabrera did not agree to the partition but instead offered to redeem Villanueva's share on October 30, 1980. Villanueva refused this offer, leading to the filing of a civil action for legal redemption by Cabrera. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila ruled in favor of the plaintiff (Cabrera), ordering the defendant (Villanueva) to re-sell the 28/112 share upon payment of P12,000.00 and awarding attorney's fees. The RTC found that Cabrera had the right to legal redemption. The defendant appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The Petition: The IAC reversed the RTC's decision, holding that Cabrera was duly notified in writing of the sale and failed to exercise her right of redemption within the prescribed period. Cabrera then filed a petition for review by way of certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the sufficiency of the written notice and the timeliness of her redemption offer.
Issue(s)
Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court resolved the issue on whether or not the petitioner was legally and duly notified of the sale of the 28/112 share of the property in question in the light of Article 1623 of the New Civil Code. Whether the petitioner exercised her right of legal redemption within the prescribed 30-day period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, denying the petition. It held that the petitioner failed to exercise her right of legal redemption within the statutory period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the petitioner was legally and duly notified of the sale: The Court held that while actual knowledge of the sale is not sufficient to commence the 30-day period for legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code, a written notice is indispensable. However, the Court found that the Joint Affidavit executed by the vendors, Feliciano and Antonio Oropesa, attesting to their written notification to co-owners, served as strong evidence of such notice. Despite the vendors' later repudiation of the affidavit, the Court gave it credence, especially since it was stipulated in court and notarized. The Court reasoned that a notarized document carries the presumption of regularity and requires clear and convincing evidence to be overturned. Furthermore, the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 96437 in the name of the private respondent, reflecting her as a co-owner, was considered constructive notice to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner remained unperturbed for over ten years after the TCT was issued, suggesting a sleeping on her rights. The letter from private respondent's counsel dated September 23, 1980, proposing partition, was also considered a written notice of the purchase. On the issue of whether the petitioner exercised her right of legal redemption within the prescribed 30-day period: The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to exercise her right of redemption within the statutory period. The Joint Affidavit, dated April 1, 1968, indicated that written notice was given. Counting from this date, or even from the issuance of the TCT in 1969, the petitioner's offer to redeem on October 30, 1980, was significantly beyond the 30-day period mandated by Article 1623 of the Civil Code. The Court emphasized that the law requires the offer to be made within the specified period to be valid. The petitioner's delay in asserting her right, coupled with the issuance of the TCT and the passage of over a decade, led the Court to conclude that she was estopped from questioning the sale and had lost her right to redeem. The Court reiterated that the registration of the deed is the operative act that binds the property, and from that point, the petitioner had full and actual knowledge of the private respondent's acquisition of the shares.
Main Doctrine
The period for exercising the right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code commences from the date of written notice of the sale to the co-owner. While actual knowledge may exist, a written notice is still required to remove uncertainty. A Joint Affidavit affirming that written notice was given, especially when stipulated in court, serves as strong evidence against the affiants' subsequent denial, and the registration of the transfer certificate of title reflecting the new co-owner can also be considered as notice.