G.R. No. 121039-45 - People vs. Sanchez

The decedent, Francisco Gosiengfiao, was the registered owner of a residential lot located at Ugac Sur, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, identified as Lot 1351-A, Plan PSD-67391, with an area of 1,346 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2416.
The property was mortgaged multiple times by the decedent to the Rural Bank of Tuguegarao, last on January 29, 1958.
Francisco Gosiengfiao died intestate on August 15, 1958, survived by his wife Antonia and several children, including the private respondents and plaintiffs-appellants Grace, Emma, Ester, Francisco Jr., Norma, Lina (represented by daughter Pinky Rose), and Jacinto.

Due to unpaid loans, the property was foreclosed and sold at a public auction on December 27, 1963, in which the Rural Bank was the highest bidder.
On February 7, 1964, Amparo Gosiengfiao-Ibarra redeemed the property by paying P1,347.89, with the balance of P423.35 paid by December 28, 1964.
On September 10, 1965, Antonia Gosiengfiao, on behalf of herself and some children, executed a Deed of Assignment of the Right of Redemption in favor of Amparo G. Ibarra.
On August 15, 1966, Amparo sold the entire property to Leonardo Mariano, who established residence there. The Deed of Sale was signed by Amparo, Antonia, Carlos, and Severino.

In 1982, Grace Gosiengfiao learned about the sale and attempted to confront the Marianoes at the Barangay Captain’s office, resulting in a certificate to file action issued on November 27, 1982.
Leonardo Mariano subsequently sold the property to his children Lazaro F. Mariano and Dionisia M. Aquino on December 8, 1982.
On December 21, 1982, respondents/plaintiffs filed a complaint for recovery of possession and legal redemption with damages against Leonardo and Avelina Mariano. They claimed co-ownership rights and alleged the right of redemption, given that theirs were shares not sold.
Defendants claimed no cause of action existed, arguing Amparo was sole owner by redemption with her personal funds and that plaintiffs’ redemption rights had expired under the statute of limitations or laches.

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that Amparo’s redemption made her the sole owner and that respondents lost rights by failing to redeem timely.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that redemption by a co-owner inures to all co-owners and does not terminate co-ownership, especially since the property had not been partitioned.
The Court of Appeals declared respondents as co-owners and emphasized that Article 1620 – not Article 1088 – applied to the redemption in this case.

Petitioners contended the Court of Appeals erred in applying Article 1620 instead of Article 1088 of the Civil Code, since the property was part of an intestate estate not yet partitioned.
They argued that under Article 1088, the right of redemption must be exercised within one month from written notice of sale, which respondents failed to do.
Petitioners relied on the case Conejero et al. v. Court of Appeals, wherein written notice was equated to delivery of a copy of the deed of sale.

Respondent Grace testified she was never given written notice of the sale, only verbally informed, and that she attempted to secure a copy of the deed of sale but was denied.
The testimony of Grace remained unrebutted by petitioners.
Respondents attempted to redeem the property by tendering payment in October 1982, which was refused.

Whether redemption by a co-owner who uses personal funds to redeem the entire property vests sole ownership in said co-owner, thus terminating the co-ownership.
Whether Article 1088 or Article 1620 of the Civil Code applies to the right of redemption exercised in this case involving a property forming part of an intestate estate not partitioned.
Whether the absence of a written notice of sale given to the co-owners affects the running of the one month period to exercise the right of redemption under Article 1088.