Aguilar v. Aguilar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Senen and Virgilio Aguilar purchased a house and lot for their father. They executed an agreement stipulating equal shares and that Senen would live with their father and pay the remaining loan obligation. After their father's death, Virgilio demanded Senen vacate and the property be sold for division of proceeds, which Senen refused. Procedural History: Virgilio filed a complaint for specific performance, which the trial court granted, ordering the sale of the property and division of proceeds, with Senen ordered to vacate and pay rentals. The Court of Appeals reversed this. This Court, in G.R. No. 76351, reversed the CA and reinstated the trial court's decision, ordering Senen to vacate within 90 days and pay monthly rentals. The Petition: Senen filed an action for legal redemption against Virgilio and Angel, alleging Virgilio sold his share to Angel in January 1989 without written notice to Senen, thus violating Senen's right as a co-owner. Meanwhile, the property was sold at public auction to Alejandro C. Sangalang. Virgilio was served a copy of Senen's complaint in January 1997. Virgilio moved to dismiss, citing lack of cause of action and forum shopping. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of laches, finding Senen delayed seven years in asserting his right. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. Hence, the instant petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Senen’s complaint for legal redemption is barred by laches. Whether a written notice of sale is indispensable for the exercise of the right of legal redemption by a co-owner.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 55750 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Senen’s complaint for legal redemption is barred by laches: The Court held that Senen's complaint for legal redemption was indeed barred by laches. The sale of Virgilio's share to Angel occurred in January 1989. Senen admitted having actual knowledge of this sale. However, he only asserted his right to redeem the property in March 1995 by filing his complaint, a delay of seven (7) years. This unexplained delay is considered unreasonable and falls under the definition of laches, which is the failure or neglect to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party has abandoned or declined to assert it. To uphold Senen's right after such a prolonged period would unduly prejudice the respondent-intervenor, Alejandro C. Sangalang, who was a purchaser in good faith and for value. Furthermore, by the time Senen filed his action, the co-ownership may have already been terminated through the sale and subsequent auction, negating any remaining right of redemption. On the issue of whether a written notice of sale is indispensable for the exercise of the right of legal redemption by a co-owner: The Court clarified that while the old rule required a written notice of sale by the vendor to co-owners for the exercise of legal redemption, this requirement has been relaxed. Citing the case of Si v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that a co-owner who has actual notice of the sale is not entitled to a written notice because such notice would be superfluous. The law does not demand unnecessary acts. Therefore, Senen's contention that the thirty-day redemption period had not prescribed due to the absence of a written notice lacked merit, as his actual knowledge of the sale in 1989 triggered the period within which he should have acted.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner with actual notice of the sale of a co-owned property is not entitled to a written notice for the exercise of legal redemption, as such notice would be superfluous. Failure to exercise the right of redemption within thirty days from actual notice, or within a reasonable time thereafter if the community has been terminated, may be barred by laches.