Mariano v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The decedent Francisco Gosiengfiao was the registered owner of a residential lot. The lot was mortgaged by the decedent to the Rural Bank of Tuguegarao. Francisco Gosiengfiao died intestate, survived by his wife Antonia and several heirs, including the plaintiffs-appellants (Grace Gosiengfiao, et al.). The mortgaged lot was foreclosed by the bank and awarded to it in a foreclosure sale. Third-party defendant Amparo Gosiengfiao-Ibarra redeemed the property by paying the redemption price. Subsequently, Antonia Gosiengfiao, on behalf of herself and her minor children, along with other children, executed a "Deed of Assignment of the Right of Redemption" in favor of Amparo G. Ibarra. Amparo Gosiengfiao then sold the entire property to defendant Leonardo Mariano, who established residence thereon. In 1982, plaintiff-appellant Grace Gosiengfiao learned of the sale and sought to assert her claim. After a barangay confrontation failed, a certificate to file action was issued. Thereafter, Leonardo Mariano sold the property to his children, Lazaro F. Mariano and Dionicia M. Aquino. Procedural History: Plaintiffs Grace Gosiengfiao, et al. filed a complaint for "recovery of possession and legal redemption with damages" against Leonardo and Avelina Mariano, alleging their rights as co-heirs and co-owners. The defendants argued that Amparo Gosiengfiao became the sole owner upon redeeming the property with her personal funds and thus validly sold it, and that the plaintiffs' right of redemption was barred by the Statute of Limitations or laches. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, ruling that Amparo G. Ibarra became the sole owner upon redemption and that the plaintiffs lost their rights by failing to redeem. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, declaring the respondents as co-owners, holding that redemption by a co-owner inures to the benefit of all co-owners and does not terminate co-ownership. The Petition: Petitioners (Leonardo Mariano, et al.) seek review of the CA decision, arguing that the CA incorrectly applied Article 1620 instead of Article 1088 of the Civil Code, and that the private respondents' right of redemption was not timely exercised due to lack of written notice as required by Article 1088.
Issue(s)
Whether a co-owner who redeems the entire property with her own personal funds becomes the sole owner, thereby terminating the existing state of co-ownership. Whether the private respondents' right of legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code was timely exercised, considering the alleged lack of written notice of the sale. Whether the private respondents' failure to consign the full redemption price in court after tender of payment was rejected bars their right to redeem.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the private respondents have not lost their right to redeem the property. The Court ruled that a co-owner's redemption of a foreclosed property inures to the benefit of all co-owners and does not terminate the co-ownership. Furthermore, the period for legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code does not commence without the required written notice of the sale. The Court also held that consignation is not necessary when a tender of payment is made to enforce a right of redemption.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether a co-owner who redeems the entire property with her own personal funds becomes the sole owner, thereby terminating the existing state of co-ownership: The Court held that redemption by a co-owner, even if made with personal funds, does not vest sole ownership in the redeemer nor does it terminate the co-ownership. The redemption inures to the benefit of all co-owners. This principle is based on the nature of co-ownership, where each co-owner is entitled to their share, and actions taken to preserve the common property within the redemption period should benefit all. The Court distinguished this from a situation where a co-owner purchases the property from the mortgagee bank after the redemption period has expired and title has been consolidated, in which case co-ownership would cease. The Court cited established jurisprudence that a redemption by a co-owner within the prescribed period benefits all other co-owners. On whether the private respondents' right of legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code was timely exercised, considering the alleged lack of written notice of the sale: The Court ruled that the period for legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code had not even begun to run because there was no written notice of the sale given to the private respondents. The Court emphasized that the requirement of written notice is indispensable, as established in cases like Castillo v. Samonte and Garcia v. Calaliman. Actual knowledge acquired in any other manner is insufficient to start the redemption period. The Court found that the evidence did not support the petitioners' claim that a written notice was given, and Grace Gosiengfiao's testimony indicated she was never informed in writing. The Court reiterated that the purpose of the written notice is to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms, and its validity. On whether the private respondents' failure to consign the full redemption price in court after tender of payment was rejected bars their right to redeem: The Court held that consignation was not necessary in this case. It explained that the tender of payment was made not to discharge an obligation, but to enforce or exercise a right of redemption. Previous rulings have established that a mere tender of payment is sufficient to preserve the right of repurchase and serves as a basis for an action to compel the vendee a retro to resell the property, without the need for subsequent consignation. The bringing of an action in court is the remedy to enforce the right of redemption when the purchaser refuses the redemption, and this action must be filed within the prescriptive period provided by the Statute of Limitations, which was done by the private respondents.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner who redeems a foreclosed property with their own funds within the redemption period does not become the sole owner but inures to the benefit of all co-owners, thus not terminating the co-ownership. The period for legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code does not begin to run without the required written notice of the sale.