G.R. No. 47447-49 - Teodoro R. Yangco, et al. vs. Manuel Laserna, et al.

The case involves the exercise of the right of legal redemption concerning a residential lot located in Ugac Sur, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, originally owned by the decedent Francisco Gosiengfiao and described as Lot 1351-A, Plan PSD-67391, covered by TCT No. T-2416.
Prior mortgage transactions by the decedent with the Rural Bank of Tuguegarao led to foreclosure after his intestate death, resulting in the lot’s sale at a foreclosure auction on December 27, 1963.
The lot was redeemed by a third-party defendant, Amparo Gosiengfiao-Ibarra, who paid the redemption price, and subsequently executed a Deed of Assignment of the Right of Redemption to the other heirs.

In Mariano v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court recognized the petitioner-heirs’ right to legal redemption of the property, emphasizing that:

The decedent’s heirs, although co-owners, had a right to redeem the portion of the property sold to respondent-buyers.
Amparo’s exercise of redemption with her own funds did not divest the other heirs of their inherited right.

The Court held that in the absence of a written notice of sale by the vendor, the thirty-day period prescribed for the exercise of the right of redemption did not begin to run.
The decision declared: “Respondents have not lost their right to redeem, for in the absence of a written notification of the sale by the vendors, the 30-day period has not even begun to run.”
The ruling was subsequently confirmed when the CA reversed the earlier trial court decision and affirmed the petitioner-heirs as co-owners entitled to redeem.

On April 26, 1994, the petitioner-heirs, as winning parties, filed a motion for the execution of the Mariano Decision.
The trial court issued a writ of execution and a notice to vacate, prompting respondent-buyers to challenge the issuance and the interpretation that the execution order divested them of possession.
Despite respondent-buyers’ repeated motions and challenges—including attempts to nullify the certificate of redemption and to assert that the redemption period had lapsed due to the entry of judgment—the petitioner-heirs filed a notice of redemption on March 31, 1995, supported by the tender of the redemption price.
The sheriff, after noting that the respondents failed to accept or sign the notice, issued a Certificate of Redemption on April 18, 1995.
Various rulings by different trial judges (Judge Beltran and Judge Luczon) addressed aspects such as the rewriting of the writ, the nullification of the notice and certificate of redemption, and findings on whether proper or sufficient notice was given.
The respondent-buyers contended that the entry of judgment in the Mariano Decision constituted sufficient notice, thereby starting the 30-day redemption period on August 2, 1993, and argued that the delay on the part of the petitioner-heirs resulted in a waiver of their right.

The crux is whether the final and executory decision (Mariano Decision) of the Supreme Court qualifies as “written notice” as required by law for the commencement of the 30-day redemption period.
There is contention whether the method of notice (i.e., notification by the vendor as prescribed in Article 1623 of the Civil Code) can be substituted by the issuance of an entry of judgment.
Disputes arose regarding whether the petitioners’ “late” filing of a motion for execution and subsequent notice of redemption met the requirements of timeliness under the Rules of Court.

Whether the final and executory decision in Mariano constitutes a valid “written notice” by the vendor to trigger the 30-day redemption period under Article 1623 of the Civil Code.
Whether the 30-day period for exercising the right of legal redemption should be reckoned from the notice of sale by the vendor or from the finality of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Whether the petitioner-heirs’ issuance of a notice of redemption, filed approximately eight months after the finality of the Mariano Decision, is timely and sufficient to preserve their right of redemption.
Whether the actions of the respondent-buyers regarding their repeated motions and objections can negate the petitioner-heirs’ established right to redeem the property.