Verdad v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the right of legal redemption over a residential lot. Socorro C. Rosales, the private respondent, sought to exercise this right as the widow of David Rosales, whose mother, Macaria Atega, was the original owner. Macaria Atega died intestate in 1956, leaving several heirs, including her son David. David Rosales later died intestate without issue. The heirs of Ramon Burdeos, another heir of Macaria Atega, sold their purported interest in the lot to the petitioner, Zosima Verdad, through two deeds of sale with differing declared prices. Socorro Rosales discovered this sale and attempted to redeem the property. Procedural History: Socorro Rosales discovered the sale of the lot on March 30, 1987, and immediately sought to exercise her right of legal redemption by tendering P23,000.00 to Zosima Verdad, which was refused. After failing to reach a settlement through barangay conciliation, private respondents initiated an action for legal redemption before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City on October 16, 1987. The RTC dismissed the case on June 29, 1990, ruling that the private respondents' right to redeem had lapsed. The private respondents appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Appeal: The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's decision on April 22, 1993, holding that Socorro C. Rosales was entitled to redeem the inheritance rights or pro indiviso share of the Heirs of Ramon Burdeos, Sr. in the disputed lot under the same terms as the sale, provided she returned the purchase price within a specified period. The CA found that the statutory redemption period had not yet commenced because the vendors had failed to provide the mandatory written notice of the sale to all co-owners as required by Article 1623 of the Civil Code. The petitioner, Zosima Verdad, then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in granting the redemption right, in ignoring actual knowledge as a factor constituting laches, and in concluding that the redemption was timely exercised despite the barangay proceedings and the nature of the tender of payment. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the CA's decision, holding that Socorro, as the legal heir of her husband David, who was a co-owner, possessed the right to redeem the property and that the redemption was timely exercised due to the lack of written notice of the sale.
Issue(s)
Whether Socorro C. Rosales, as a daughter-in-law, is entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption over the property. Whether the thirty-day period for legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code had commenced without a written notice of the sale, and whether actual knowledge of the sale by a co-owner is equivalent to the written notice required by Article 1623 of the Civil Code. Whether the tender of P23,000.00 was a valid exercise of the right of redemption. Whether the commencement of barangay conciliation proceedings stayed the running of the statutory redemption period.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Socorro C. Rosales is declared entitled to redeem the inheritance rights or pro indiviso share of the Heirs of Ramon Burdeos, Sr. in Lot 529, Ts-65 of the Butuan Cadastre, under the terms and conditions appearing in the deed of sale for P23,000.00, within the remaining eleven (11) days from finality of the decision, unless written notice of the sale and its terms are received in the interim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement of Socorro C. Rosales to redeem: The Court held that Socorro C. Rosales, as the widow of David Rosales, is entitled to exercise the right of redemption. While she is not an intestate heir of her mother-in-law, Macaria Atega, she is a legal heir of her husband, David Rosales. David Rosales, having survived his mother, became a co-owner of the property. Upon David's death, his estate, which included his undivided interest in the property, passed on to his widow, Socorro, and their co-heirs. Therefore, Socorro, along with other private respondents and co-heirs of David, became co-owners of the property, granting them the right of redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code when their co-owners' shares were sold to a third person. On the commencement of the redemption period and the necessity of written notice; and on actual knowledge versus written notice: The Court reiterated that the right of legal redemption must be exercised within thirty days from notice in writing by the vendor, as stipulated in Article 1623 of the Civil Code. The mandatory nature of this written notice was emphasized, stating that the deed of sale cannot be registered without an affidavit of the vendor attesting to such notice. Consequently, the thirty-day period for redemption had not yet commenced because no written notice of the sale was given by the Burdeos heirs to the co-owners. The discovery of the sale by Socorro at the City Treasurer's Office and the subsequent filing of the redemption case were thus considered timely. The Court firmly rejected the argument that actual knowledge of the sale by a co-owner is equivalent to the written notice required by Article 1623. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court clarified that even with actual knowledge, the co-owner is still entitled to a written notice to remove all uncertainties regarding the sale, its terms, conditions, efficacy, and status. The Court distinguished the present case from Alonzo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, noting that in Alonzo, the redemption was sought years after the sale, whereas here, the redemption was sought promptly upon discovery and before the statutory period could even begin to run due to the lack of written notice. On the tender of payment: The Court found the tender of P23,000.00 to be a valid exercise of the right of redemption. It quoted with approval the appellate court's observation that the amount was offered during barangay conciliation proceedings and was rejected by the petitioner not because it was not the purchase price or was only partial payment, but because it was considered 'unconscionable' based on its current value. The Court affirmed that the redemptioner is required to return the purchase price, and the offer made by Socorro met this requirement, as supported by jurisprudence like Sempio vs. Del Rosario and Daza vs. Tomacruz. On the commencement of barangay conciliation proceedings staying the running of the statutory redemption period: The provided text does not contain any ratio decidendi regarding whether the commencement of barangay conciliation proceedings stayed the running of the statutory redemption period. Therefore, there is no corresponding ratio for this issue.
Main Doctrine
The thirty-day period for exercising the right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code does not commence without a written notice of the sale from the vendor to the co-owners, and actual knowledge of the sale by a co-owner is not a substitute for such mandatory written notice.