Facts:

This case concerns an Action for Legal Redemption filed by Teodoro Rabago Baltazar (hereinafter referred to as Baltazar) against several respondents, including Rolando V. Miguel (Miguel), Patrocinio H. Tobia, Angelito Flores, Hipolito Rubio, Aurea H. Bruno, Edilberta Alberta H. Rubio, and Jose H. Rubio. The case originated in February 2006 when Baltazar sought to redeem a 750 square meter parcel of land located at Ntra. Sra. Del Rosario, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, covered by TCT No. T-19383. The land belonged to Baltazar, Florencio Hernando, and Hipolita Hernando, who were co-owners. After the deaths of Florencio and Hipolita, the heirs of these co-owners sold their interests to Miguel without notifying Baltazar, who was also an heir. Baltazar attempted to redeem the property by offering more than the purchase price but the offer was rejected by Miguel. The case was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 12, and was subjected to mediation, which failed. Ove

...

Facts:

Background of the Dispute

• Teodoro Rabago Baltazar (the petitioner) and his co-owner status in a 750-square-meter parcel of land situated at Ntra. Sra. Del Rosario, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, covered by TCT No. T-19383.
• The property was co-owned by Florencio Hernando and Hipolita Hernando, with their respective heirs inheriting the interests.
• The ownership remained unpartitioned among the co-owners even after the demise of Florencio and Hipolita.

Sale of the Co-owners’ Interests

• Subsequent to the deaths, in or after September 2003, the heirs of the deceased co-owners sold their rights and interests over the subject property to Rolando V. Miguel.
• The sale was effected for P200,000.00 via a Deed of Adjudication with Sale dated September 9, 2003, and was done without written notice to Baltazar.

Petitioner’s Attempt to Exercise the Right of Legal Redemption

• Baltazar, recognizing his right under Article 1620 of the Civil Code, offered Miguel an amount exceeding the purchase price as a means to redeem his interest.
• Miguel rejected the offer, prompting Baltazar to file an Action for Legal Redemption on February 2, 2006.

Procedural History and Initial Litigation

• The case was filed under Civil Case No. 13663 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 12.
• Respondents (including Miguel and other heirs) asserted that Baltazar was not entitled to legal redemption, contending that the sale was valid based on the Deed of Adjudication with Sale transferring a 2/3 share to Miguel.
• The parties underwent mediation, but no settlement was achieved; the proceedings were further delayed by numerous postponements from both parties.

Motion to Dismiss and Subsequent Developments

• In December 2016—more than 10 years after the initiation of the action—respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Baltazar’s alleged failure to tender or consign the redemption price within the 30-day period required by law.
• Baltazar then consigned the redemption price, amounting to P200,000.00, on January 20, 2017, and filed a Comment on the Motion to Dismiss on March 1, 2017, arguing that his right to redeem should only commence upon receipt of written notice of the sale.
• The RTC, by Resolution dated April 4, 2017, granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss and disposed of the case on the ground of non-compliance with a condition precedent.

Court of Appeals (CA) Decision

• On May 29, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal of the case.
• The CA held that Baltazar had actual knowledge of the sale (evidenced by the attached copy of the Deed of Adjudication with Sale) and that his cause of action had prescribed because the redemption period had lapsed.
• The appellate court further ruled that non-compliance with a condition precedent (tender or consign the redemption price within 30 days) may be waived by the opposing party, but prescription could not be waived, finding that Baltazar’s delay effectively barred his claim.

Issue:

The Timeliness of the Exercise of the Right of Legal Redemption

• Whether Baltazar’s action for legal redemption, filed on February 2, 2006, was timely and valid despite his delayed consignation of the redemption price on January 20, 2017.
• Whether the 30-day period under Article 1623 of the Civil Code should be treated as a condition precedent rather than as a prescriptive period.

The Effect of Non-Compliance with a Condition Precedent

• Whether the respondents’ late assertion (more than 10 years later) of Baltazar’s non-compliance with the mandate to tender or consign the redemption price constitutes a valid ground for dismissal.
• Whether Miguel’s failure to raise the non-compliance issue at the earliest opportunity resulted in a waiver of that procedural requirement.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)