Case Digest (G.R. No. 104114)
Facts:
Lee Chuy Realty Corporation v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Marc Realty and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 104114, December 04, 1995, First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns a 24,576-square-meter parcel in Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan (OCT No. 0-5290) originally co-owned by Ruben Jacinto (one-sixth) and five other co-owners (the Bascaras and Ernesto Jacinto) who together owned the remaining five-sixths. On February 4, 1981 Ruben Jacinto sold his one-sixth undivided share to Lee Chuy Realty Corporation; that sale was registered April 30, 1981. On May 5, 1989 the Bascaras and Ernesto Jacinto sold their collective five-sixths to Marc Realty and Development Corporation, with registration dated October 16, 1989.
Lee Chuy Realty claimed it was not notified of the 1989 sale and only learned of it through inquiry at the Register of Deeds; Marc Realty contended Lee Chuy had been verbally notified and given a copy of the deed. On November 13, 1989 Lee Chuy filed a complaint for legal redemption (docketed Civil Case No. 661-M-89, RTC Malolos, Br. 7) and consigned in court a manager’s check for P614,400. In its amended answer with counterclaim, Marc Realty moved to dismiss for failure to allege a prior valid tender or valid notice of consignation.
On December 26, 1990 the Regional Trial Court (Branch 7, Malolos; presided by Judge Danilo A. Manalastas) ruled for Lee Chuy Realty, finding a prior valid tender and consignation and holding that “the filing of the action itself, within the period of redemption, is equivalent to a formal offer to redeem.” Marc Realty sought relief from the Supreme Court (petition for certiorari/prohibition with TRO and/or injunction), but that petition was referred to the Court of Appeals under Sec. 9, B.P. Blg. 129.
On November 22, 1991 the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding that a prior tender or offer of redemption is a prerequisite to filing an action for legal redemption and that the redemption price must be tendered within the 30-day red...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the filing of a judicial action to redeem, coupled with consignation of the price within the redemption period, equivalent to a formal offer to redeem under Articles 1620 and 1623 of the Civil Code?
- Is a formal offer to redeem accompanied by tender of payment a condition precedent to the filing of an action to validly exercise the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)