Rama v. Nogra
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The controversy involves an undivided portion of Lot No. 6034-C-2-H-4. Ricardo Rama sold his one-fourth undivided share to Spouses Medardo and Purita Nogra on September 10, 1992, with full payment and execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale on July 13, 2001. Petitioners Hermelina Rama and Baby Rama Lauron claimed they had no knowledge of the sale until conciliation proceedings before the barangay on July 25, 2007, and September 9, 2007, where Ricardo and Spouses Nogra confirmed the sale. Hermelina offered to redeem the property, but the offer was rejected. Spouses Nogra surveyed the property for partition, prompting petitioners to confront Ricardo again on September 26, 2007, who then gave them a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale. Petitioners filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Redemption, and Other Reliefs on October 16, 2007, and consigned the redemption price on October 26, 2007. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that Hermelina was properly notified of the sale only on September 26, 2007, when she received a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale, and that the 30-day period for redemption commenced from that date. The RTC found the postal registry return slip insufficient proof of notice in 1992. The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the RTC decision, ruling that while the postal registry return slip was insufficient, the required written notice could be dispensed with due to Hermelina's actual knowledge of the sale, citing her participation in conciliation proceedings and a prior ejectment case. The CA concluded that Hermelina exercised her right beyond the 30-day period. The Petition: Petitioners, with Baby Rama Lauron succeeding Hermelina, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, maintaining that a written notice is mandatory and indispensable for the commencement of the 30-day redemption period under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether Hermelina validly exercised her redemption right by the filing of the complaint before the RTC on October 16, 2007. Whether the written notice requirement under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code is mandatory and indispensable for the commencement of the 30-day redemption period, and whether the exception to this rule based on peculiar circumstances and laches applies in this case.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 26, 2015, and Resolution dated June 10, 2015, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04327 are REVERSED. The Decision dated October 25, 2011, of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. CEB-33782 is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Hermelina's exercise of redemption right: Based on the reckoning of the 30-day redemption period from Hermelina's receipt of the Deed of Absolute Sale on September 26, 2007, her filing of the complaint for redemption on October 16, 2007, and the consignment of the redemption price on October 26, 2007, were both within the statutory period, thus validly exercising her right of redemption. On the mandatory nature of written notice and the absence of an exception: The Court reiterated that the written notice of sale required under Article 1623 is mandatory and indispensable. Mere knowledge is insufficient. While Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court allows an exception based on peculiar circumstances and laches, these were absent here. The Spouses Nogra did not demonstrate overt acts of dominion, and the barangay conciliation did not provide the necessary particulars of the sale. Hermelina was not guilty of laches as she took timely steps to verify the sale. The statement in Spouses Si v. Court of Appeals that "Co-owners with actual notice of the sale are not entitled to written notice" was merely an obiter dictum and not precedential. Even with actual knowledge, the redemptioner must be furnished with the necessary information.
Main Doctrine
The 30-day period for exercising the right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code commences only upon receipt of the written notice of the sale from the vendor. Mere actual knowledge of the sale, even if coupled with circumstances that should have prompted inquiry, is insufficient to dispense with the mandatory written notice requirement, unless such knowledge is accompanied by laches on the part of the redemptioner.