Case Digest (G.R. No. 239859)
Facts:
Teodoro Rabago Baltazar v. Rolando V. Miguel, G.R. No. 239859, June 28, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Delos Santos, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is Teodoro Rabago Baltazar; the respondents are Rolando V. Miguel, Patrocinio H. Tobia, Angelito Flores, Hipolito Rubio, Aurea H. Bruno, Edilberta Alberta H. Rubio, and Jose H. Rubio.Baltazar, together with Florencio Hernando and Hipolita Hernando, were pro indiviso co-owners of a 750-sq.m. parcel covered by TCT No. T-19383. After Florencio and Hipolita died, their respective heirs (the respondents, except Miguel) purportedly conveyed their interests to Miguel by a Deed of Adjudication with Sale dated September 9, 2003, for P200,000.00. The property remained unpartitioned and Baltazar alleges he received no written notice of the sale.
Baltazar offered to redeem the sold 2/3 share for an amount exceeding the purchase price but Miguel rejected the offer. Baltazar then filed an Action for Legal Redemption (Civil Case No. 13663) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Laoag City, Branch 12, on February 2, 2006; he attached a copy of the Deed of Adjudication with Sale to his complaint. The RTC referred the parties to mediation; the case suffered multiple postponements and did not proceed quickly to pre-trial.
In December 2016—more than ten years after Baltazar filed suit and after Miguel had previously answered—the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting Baltazar failed to tender or consign the redemption price within the prescribed 30-day period. Baltazar consigned P200,000.00 only on January 20, 2017 and filed a Comment on the motion on March 1, 2017, arguing that the 30-day period runs only from written notice and that he had not been given written notice.
By Resolution dated April 4, 2017, the RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss, holding there had been no valid exercise of the right of redemption for lack of timely consignation and that written notice was unnecessary because Baltazar had actual knowledge (he attached the deed). On appeal, the Court...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondents waive the ground of non-consignation or non-tender (failure to comply with a condition precedent) by not raising it at the earliest opportunity?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in treating the 30-day reglementary period under Article 1623 of the Civil Code as a prescriptive period?
- Given Baltazar’s alleged actual knowledge and the timing of his filing and consignation, did he validly and timely exercise his right of legal redemption, or is hi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)