Case Digest (G.R. No. 141613)
Facts:
Senen B. Aguilar v. Virgilio B. Aguilar and Angel B. Aguilar, G.R. No. 141613, December 16, 2005, the Supreme Court Third Division, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.The parties are brothers Senen B. Aguilar (petitioner), Virgilio B. Aguilar and Angel B. Aguilar (respondents), with Alejandro C. Sangalang as intervenor‑respondent (purchaser at public auction). The dispute arises from co‑ownership of a house and lot in Parañaque City purchased by Senen and Virgilio for their father; on February 23, 1970 the brothers executed a written agreement that they would have equal shares and that Senen would live with their father and pay the SSS loan balance.
Their father died in 1974. Virgilio demanded sale and division of proceeds; Senen refused. On January 12, 1979 Virgilio filed for specific performance in the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Rizal at Pasay City. Senen was declared in default during pretrial, and on July 26, 1979 the trial court ordered the property sold and proceeds divided equally, and Senen to vacate and pay rentals with interest for the occupancy period.
On appeal (CA‑G.R. CV No. 03933) the Court of Appeals reversed. Virgilio elevated the case to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 76351. On October 29, 1993 the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court decision, modifying it to order Senen to vacate within 90 days and pay monthly rent of P1,200 with legal interest; the trial court was directed to implement the decision and it was declared final and executory.
Pursuant to that judgment, the property was sold at public auction on November 27, 1995 to Alejandro C. Sangalang; Virgilio received his share and the rental payments. On March 27, 1995 (before the auction), Senen filed in the RTC Branch 260, Parañaque City, an action for legal redemption against Virgilio and Angel (Civil Case No. 95‑039), alleging that Virgilio had sold his 1/2 share to Angel in January 1989 without furnishing Senen written notice and that, as co‑owner, Senen had the right to redeem.
Virgilio, then resident in California, was served through the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco on January 25, 1997 and on February 24, 1997 moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action and forum‑shopping. On June 27, 1997 the trial court dismissed Civil Case No. 95‑039 on the ground of laches, finding an unreasonable seven‑...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that petitioner Senen B. Aguilar’s complaint for legal redemption (retracto legal de comuneros) in Civil Case No. 95‑039 is barred by...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)