Sempio v. Del Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose Sempio and Irineo G. Bernabe were co-owners of a fishery. On November 22, 1920, Bernabe sold his undivided interest to Timoteo del Rosario for P5,000, with the sale noted on the Torrens title. Procedural History: On March 28, 1921, Sempio filed an action against Del Rosario for legal redemption of the fishery share, offering to reimburse Del Rosario. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had not exercised his right within the prescribed time. The Petition: The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, questioning whether Article 1524 of the Civil Code, setting a nine-day period for legal redemption, was still in effect or had been implicitly repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure concerning prescription of actions.
Issue(s)
Whether Article 1524 of the Civil Code, providing a nine-day period for legal redemption, is still in force or has been implicitly repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether the plaintiff exercised his right of legal redemption within the prescribed period.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the complaint is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Article 1524 of the Civil Code is still in force: The Court held that Article 1524 of the Civil Code, which establishes a nine-day period for the exercise of the right of legal redemption, has not been implicitly repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court reasoned that the right of legal redemption is a substantive right that creates a right which would otherwise not exist, whereas the period for commencing actions restricts the time within which a cause of action may be asserted. These are fundamentally different natures. Repeals by implication are not favored in law, and there was no clear indication that the legislature intended to abrogate the specific period for legal redemption provided in the Civil Code by enacting provisions on prescription of actions in the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court noted that other provisions of the Civil Code concerning redemption have been given effect in numerous decisions, and the specific provision of Article 1524 was only briefly touched upon in Lim Tuico vs. Cu-Unjieng, where the redemption was exercised within the nine-day period, unlike in the present case. On the issue of whether the plaintiff exercised his right of legal redemption within the prescribed period: The plaintiff filed his action for legal redemption on March 28, 1921. The sale was registered on November 22, 1920. Article 1524 of the Civil Code provides that the right of legal redemption can be exercised within nine days from the date of the record of the transfer in the Registry of Deeds, or in default thereof, from the time the redemptioner may have had knowledge of the sale. Since the action was filed on March 28, 1921, which is substantially beyond the nine-day period from the registration of the sale on November 22, 1920, the plaintiff failed to exercise his right of legal redemption within the statutory period. Therefore, his action was correctly dismissed.
Main Doctrine
Article 1524 of the Civil Code, which provides a nine-day period for legal redemption, has not been repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure and remains in force.