Case Digest (G.R. No. 101522)
Facts:
Leonardo Mariano, et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals (Sixteenth Division), G.R. No. 101522, May 28, 1993, Supreme Court Second Division, Nocon, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners were Leonardo Mariano and others; private respondents were Grace, Emma, Ester, Francisco Jr., Norma and Pinky Rose (members of the Gosiengfiao family) and third-party defendants included Amparo Gosiengfiao‑Ibarra and other heirs.The dispute concerns a residential lot in Ugac Sur, Tuguegarao (Lot 1351‑A, T‑2416) originally owned by the decedent Francisco Gosiengfiao. The property had been mortgaged and subsequently foreclosed; at the foreclosure sale held December 27, 1963 the mortgagee bank became the highest bidder. On February 7 and December 28, 1964, Amparo Gosiengfiao‑Ibarra redeemed the property by paying the bank, and on September 10, 1965 a Deed of Assignment of the Right of Redemption was executed in her favor by the decedent’s widow and some heirs. On August 15, 1966 Amparo sold the whole property to Leonardo Mariano, who thereafter occupied it.
In 1982, private respondent Grace learned of the sale. A barangay certificate to file action was issued on November 27, 1982 after unsuccessful attempts at settlement. Meanwhile, on December 8, 1982 Leonardo sold the property to his children. On December 21, 1982 Grace and other heirs filed a complaint for recovery of possession and legal redemption with damages, alleging their co‑ownership and right of redemption; defendants pleaded that Amparo had become sole owner by redeeming with her funds and that plaintiffs’ right was barred by prescription or laches.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch I, Cagayan, after trial rendered judgment on September 16, 1986 dismissing the complaint and holding that Amparo’s redemption made her sole owner and that other heirs lost their rights for failing to redeem. The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CV No. 13122 reversed in a decision dated May 13, 1991 and declared the private respondents co‑owners: the CA held that a co‑owner’s redemption within the statutory period inures to the benefit of all co‑owners and does not terminate co‑ownership, citing a line of cases (e.g., Annie Tan v. C.A., Adille v. C.A., De Guzman v. C.A.).
Petitioners then brought this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA erred in applying Article 1620 of the Civil Code instead of Article 1088, and that under Article 1088 respondents’ right of legal redemption had to b...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the private respondents lose their right of legal redemption because they failed to exercise it within the one‑month period under Article 1088 of the Civil Code?
- Does a co‑owner’s redemption of the whole property with personal funds within the statutory redemption period vest sole ownership in the redeemer, or does it inure to all co‑owners (Article 1620)?
- Was consignation into court required after petitioners allegedly refu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)