Facts:

The case involves Senen B. Aguilar as the petitioner against his brothers Virgilio B. Aguilar and Angel B. Aguilar, with Alejandro C. Sangalang as the intervenor-respondent. The dispute arises from family matters concerning the ownership of a house and lot located in Parañaque City, Metro Manila. On October 28, 1993, Senen and Virgilio purchased this property for the benefit of their father, Maximiano Aguilar, who has since passed away. The brothers executed an agreement on February 23, 1970, declaring their equal shares in the property and stipulating that Senen would reside with their father, responsible for the remaining loan obligation owed to the Social Security System.

After their father's death in 1974, Virgilio demanded that Senen vacate the property and that it be sold, with proceeds divided equally. Senen's refusal to comply led Virgilio to file a complaint on January 12, 1979, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for specific performance. During the pre-tri

...

Facts:

Background of the Dispute

• The parties are members of the Aguilar family, namely Senen B. Aguilar (petitioner) and his brothers Virgilio B. Aguilar and Angel B. Aguilar (respondents), with Alejandro C. Sangalang intervening as respondent.
• The dispute stems from previous litigation involving the same facts and subject matter, noting that this is the second intervention by the brothers in this forum; the first being Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76351, decided in 1993.

Property Acquisition and Agreement

• On October 28, 1993, Senen and Virgilio purchased a house and lot in ParaAaque City, Metro Manila, intended for the benefit of their father, Maximiano Aguilar, who was to enjoy his retirement in a quiet neighborhood.
• On February 23, 1970, the brothers executed a written agreement which:
• Stipulated that their shares in the property be equal.
• Provided that Senen would reside with their father on the condition that he would pay the outstanding loan obligation of the former owners to the Social Security System (SSS).
• The death of their father in 1974 triggered later disputes regarding the management and disposition of the property.

Initiation of Litigation and Decisions

• Virgilio, after his father’s death, demanded that Senen vacate the house and that the property be sold so that the proceeds may be equally divided; Senen refused to comply with this demand.
• On January 12, 1979, Virgilio filed a complaint for specific performance before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Rizal at Pasay City, seeking:
• A court order compelling Senen to sell the property.
• Division of the sale proceeds between them.
• Due to Senen’s nonappearance during the pre-trial, he was declared in default, allowing Virgilio to present evidence ex-parte.
• On July 26, 1979, the trial court rendered a decision declaring both brothers co-owners entitled to equal shares, ordering:
• The sale of the property.
• Senen’s vacating of the premises.
• Payment of rental and interest by Senen to Virgilio for the period from January 1975 until Senen vacated.

Appellate and Supreme Court Proceedings

• The trial court’s decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 03933.
• Virgilio then elevated the issue by filing a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 76351, leading to the Supreme Court decision on October 29, 1993, which:
• Reinstated (with modifications) the trial court decision.
• Ordered Senen to vacate the premises within ninety (90) days and pay a monthly rental of P1,200.00 with interest.
• Directed the trial court to implement the decision immediately.

Filing the Action for Legal Redemption

• On March 27, 1995, Senen initiated an action for legal redemption (retracto legal de comuneros) at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 260, ParaAaque City, alleging:
• He was not furnished with a written notice of the sale of Virgilio’s share to Angel, which occurred in January 1989.
• As a co-owner, he retained the right to redeem the property.
• On November 27, 1995, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s earlier decision, the property was sold at a public auction to Alejandro C. Sangalang.
• Virgilio, by then residing in California, USA, received his share of the proceeds and rental payments.
• Virgilio was served with notice of Senen’s complaint only in January 1997 and subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of laches.
• On June 27, 1997, the trial court dismissed the redemption complaint on the ground that Senen delayed filing the suit for seven (7) years, a decision which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

Timeliness of the Exercise of the Right to Legal Redemption

• Whether Senen’s complaint for legal redemption should be deemed time-barred based on the doctrine of laches given:
• That he filed his complaint approximately seven (7) years after acquiring actual knowledge of the sale of Virgilio’s share in January 1989.
• That the mandatory thirty-day period for exercising the right of legal redemption was not observed.

Notice Requirement for Exercising the Right of Redemption

• Whether the traditional requirement of furnishing written notice of sale to co-owners is indispensable or whether actual notice suffices under judicial interpretation.
• The issue centers on the petitioner’s contention that a lack of written notice should prevent the application of the laches doctrine in his case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)