Case Digest (G.R. No. 109972)
Facts:
Zosima Verdad v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109972, April 29, 1996, Supreme Court First Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Zosima Verdad bought a 248-square meter residential lot (Lot No. 529, Ts-65, Butuan Cadastre). Private respondent Socorro C. Rosales (widow of David Rosales) and other Rosales heirs claimed a right of legal redemption over the property. They traced title to the late Macaria Atega, who died intestate on March 8, 1956.Macaria had children by two marriages. Among her heirs were Ramon A. Burdeos (and his heirs) from the first marriage and David Rosales and siblings from the second. David survived Macaria but later died intestate, leaving Socorro as his widow. The heirs of Ramon Burdeos (Manuela Legaspi Burdeos, Felicidad, and Ramon Jr.) executed an instrument dated June 14, 1982 selling their interest to petitioner; a notarized deed dated November 14, 1982 recited a purchase price of P23,000 (petitioner explained the lower price was to reduce capital gains tax while another instrument showed P55,460).
Socorro discovered the recorded sale on March 30, 1987 at the City Treasurer’s Office and, on March 31, 1987, sought barangay conciliation (Lupong Tagapayapa) and tendered P23,000 to petitioner, who refused the amount as unconscionable given an alleged present value of P80,000. When conciliation failed, Socorro and other Rosales heirs filed an action for "Legal Redemption with Preliminary Injunction" in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City on October 16, 1987.
After trial, the RTC on June 29, 1990 held that the right to redeem had lapsed. The Rosaleses appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on April 22, 1993 reversed and declared Socorro entitled to redeem the heirs’ share within eleven days ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Socorro C. Rosales, as widow of David Rosales and not an original heir of Macaria, have standing to exercise the right of legal redemption over the share sold by the Burdeos heirs?
- Whether the right of legal redemption had lapsed (by laches or by expiration of the statutory period) given the facts and timeline.
- Whether written notice under Art. 1623, Civil Code is mandatory and whether actual knowledge of the sale can substitute for such written notice.
- Whether Socorro’s tender at the barangay conciliation, and the form of that tender, satisfied the requirements to perfect redemption (i.e., whether an offer made and re...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)