Pascual v. Ballesteros
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a 1,539 square meter parcel of land. Initially, the property was owned by the spouses Albino and Margarita Corazon Mariano (330 sq. m.), Angela Melchor (466.5 sq. m.), and the spouses Melecio and Victoria Melchor (796.5 sq. m.). Upon the death of the Spouses Melchor, their share was inherited by their daughter Lorenza Melchor Ballesteros. Lorenza and her husband, Antonio Ballesteros (respondents), subsequently acquired Angela Melchor's share. Later, Margarita Mariano, along with her children, sold their share to spouses Roman A. Pascual and Mercedita R. Pascual, and Francisco A. Pascual (petitioners). The petitioners then caused the cancellation of the original title and obtained a new one in their names, along with Angela and the Spouses Melchor. 2. Procedural History: The respondents, claiming they did not receive written notice of the sale of Margarita Mariano's share, filed a complaint for legal redemption against the petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City. The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling that while the parties were co-owners, the respondents failed to exercise their right of redemption within the 30-day period from actual notice of the sale. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC's decision, granting the respondents' legal redemption, holding that the 30-day period had not commenced due to the absence of a mandatory written notice, despite the respondents' actual knowledge of the sale. The CA denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. They argued that they and the respondents were not co-owners because their respective shares in the property had been particularized, specified, and subdivided. Alternatively, they contended that even if co-ownership existed, the respondents could no longer exercise their right of redemption as they failed to do so within 30 days from actual knowledge of the sale. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's ruling that the absence of a written notice prevented the commencement of the 30-day redemption period.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents and the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners are co-owners of the subject property who have the right of redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code. Whether the respondents seasonably exercised their right of redemption within the 30-day redemption period under Article 1623 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The respondents are granted the legal redemption of the portion of the subject property sold to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of co-ownership: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of both the RTC and the CA that co-ownership existed over the subject property. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding and conclusive. The petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the respective shares of the registered owners were indeed particularized, specified, and subdivided in a manner that would negate co-ownership. Therefore, the respondents, as co-owners, possessed the right of legal redemption. On the issue of the right of redemption: The Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling that the respondents did not lose their right to redeem because the 30-day period under Article 1623 of the Civil Code had not commenced. The Court reiterated the mandatory and indispensable nature of the "written notice requirement" for the commencement of the redemption period. Citing established jurisprudence, including Conejero v. Court of Appeals and Verdad v. Court of Appeals, the Court stressed that mere actual knowledge of the sale, however acquired, does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The written notice is essential to remove all uncertainties about the sale, its terms, conditions, efficacy, and status, and the law's prescription of a written notice is exclusive. Since it was undisputed that the respondents did not receive a written notice of the sale, the 30-day period for redemption had not begun to run, allowing them to still exercise their right.
Main Doctrine
The 30-day period for exercising the right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code commences only upon receipt of a written notice of the sale, and mere actual knowledge of the sale by the co-owner is insufficient to trigger the running of said period.