Case Summary (G.R. No. 137677)
Key Dates
August 6, 1979 — Adalia and sisters sell 1/5 share to mother, Adela Blas (vendor).
August 8, 1986 — Adela Blas, without other co-owners’ knowledge, sells her 1/5 share to respondent Zenaida Boiser (vendee).
May 30, 1992 — Respondent allegedly sends petitioner a letter with a copy of the deed of sale and sends letters to tenants demanding 1/5 of rentals.
June 8, 1992 — Petitioner writes tenants advising them to disregard respondent’s demand.
August 5, 1992 — Petitioner receives summons and complaint (Civil Case No. 15510) filed by respondent; petitioner alleges she first learned of the sale on this date.
August 12, 1992 — Petitioner deposits P10,000.00 with the Clerk of Court as redemption price.
September 14, 1995 — Petitioner files Civil Case No. C-17055 for legal redemption.
May 31, 2000 — Supreme Court decision (applicable under the 1987 Constitution).
Applicable Law
Primary statutory provision: Article 1623 of the Civil Code (New Civil Code) governing the right of legal pre-emption or redemption by co-owners and the requirement of a written notice by the vendor or prospective vendor.
Property registration law relevant to registration consequences: Presidential Decree No. 1529, A51 (noting effect on registration when vendor’s affidavit is lacking).
Constitutional basis: Decision rendered under the 1987 Philippine Constitution (case decided in 2000).
Facts Relevant to the Legal Issue
Petitioner and three sisters were co-owners; their mother became co-owner by purchase in 1979. In 1986 the mother sold her 1/5 share to respondent; that sale allegedly was not communicated to the other co-owners. In 1992 respondent sought to collect 1/5 of rentals and sued petitioner for her share of rentals. Petitioner claims she first learned of the 1986 sale only upon receipt of summons on August 5, 1992, and exercised legal redemption by depositing the redemptive amount (P10,000) on August 12, 1992. Respondent maintains that she gave written notice earlier (May 30, 1992) by sending petitioner a letter and a copy of the deed and by notifying tenants; petitioner’s own June 8, 1992 letter to tenants is evidence she received respondent’s communication.
Procedural History and Lower Courts’ Findings
At trial the RTC dismissed petitioner’s complaint, reasoning that Art. 1623 does not prescribe a particular form for the vendor’s written notice and that petitioner admitted receipt of respondent’s May 30, 1992 letter and copy of the deed; the court treated respondent’s letter as substantial compliance with the written notice requirement, counting the 30-day redemption period from at latest June 8, 1992. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in toto. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied, prompting the petition to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether the May 30, 1992 letter sent by respondent (the vendee) to petitioner, containing a copy of the deed of sale, satisfies the vendor-origin written notice requirement under Article 1623 of the Civil Code for purposes of the 30‑day period to exercise legal redemption; alternatively, whether petitioner’s receipt of summons on August 5, 1992 constituted actual knowledge that started the redemption period.
Conflicting Precedents and Doctrinal Background
The parties and courts relied on several authorities with differing emphases:
- Decisions treating any written communication or a copy of the deed as satisfying Art. 1623 so long as the co-owner is informed in writing (De Conejero; Badillo; Distrito; Etcuban). These courts emphasized substance over technical form.
- Earlier and later authorities emphasizing the plain wording of Art. 1623 that the written notice must be given by the vendor or prospective vendor (Butte v. Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc.; Salatandol v. Retes). Salatandol reaffirmed the vendor-only notice requirement and reasoned that the legislature deliberately selected vendor-origin notice to ensure certainty and to prevent secret sales from frustrating co-owners’ redemption rights.
- The Court also considered cases allowing actual knowledge (Alonzo) to start the redemption period where written notice is unnecessary because co-owners already have actual notice.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Rationale
The Supreme Court reviewed the divergent lines of authority and the specific facts of this case. While acknowledging the textual command of Art. 1623 that notice must come from the vendor, the Court found it unjust in the present circumstances to require coercion of the vendor to give notice where the sale had been deliberately kept secret for years (sale in 1986 kept concealed until 1992). The Court reasoned that petitioner’s actual knowledge—through receipt of summons and the complaint on August 5, 1992—constituted a trigger for the 30-day redemption period. The Court relied on precedent allowing actual knowledge to start the redemption period (Alonzo) and refused to condone further delay in the exercise of redemption rights when the sale had already been established and when the vendee’s communications (including litigati
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 137677)
Case Caption, Citation, and Decision Author
- G.R. No. 137677; 388 Phil. 596; Second Division; Decision dated May 31, 2000.
- Decision authored by Mendoza, J.
- Concurring: Bellosillo (Chairman), and Buena, JJ.
- Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., on leave.
Parties and Nature of the Petition
- Petitioner: Adalia B. Francisco.
- Respondent: Zenaida F. Boiser.
- Nature of action: Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 55518 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court, Branch 122, Caloocan City, decision dismissing petitioner’s complaint for legal redemption of a co-owned property.
Subject Property and Ownership Background
- Four parcels of registered lands on which the Ten Commandments Building stands at 689 Rizal Avenue Extension, Caloocan City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-125507, T-125495, T-125496 and T-125497 issued by the Register of Deeds of Caloocan.
- Original co-owners included petitioner Adalia B. Francisco and her three sisters: Ester, Elizabeth and Adeluisa.
- On August 6, 1979, the four sisters sold 1/5 of their undivided share in the subject parcels to their mother, Adela Blas, for P10,000.00, making Adela Blas a co-owner to the extent of the share purchased.
- On August 8, 1986, without the knowledge of the other co-owners, Adela Blas sold her 1/5 share to respondent Zenaida Boiser for P10,000.00.
Key Chronology of Relevant Events
- August 6, 1979: Sale by sisters to mother Adela Blas (1/5 share for P10,000.00).
- August 8, 1986: Deed of sale from Adela Blas to respondent Zenaida Boiser (1/5 share for P10,000.00) — reportedly unknown to other co-owners at the time.
- May 30, 1992: Respondent allegedly sent petitioner a letter (Exhibit 1) informing petitioner of the sale and enclosing a copy of the Deed of Sale (Exhibit 1-A); respondent likewise sent letters to tenants of the building (Exhibits 2 and 3) informing them of the sale and requesting payment of 1/5 rentals to respondent.
- June 8, 1992: Petitioner wrote the tenants (Exhibits 4 and 5) advising them to disregard respondent’s request and to continue paying full rentals to petitioner, establishing receipt of respondent’s May 30, 1992 letter by petitioner.
- August 5, 1992: Petitioner received summons and a copy of the complaint in Civil Case No. 15510 filed by respondent, demanding petitioner’s share in rentals collected from the building’s tenants. This occasion is when petitioner learned of the sale, according to petitioner.
- August 12, 1992: Petitioner deposited P10,000.00 as redemption price with the Clerk of Court, asserting exercise of her right of legal redemption.
- August 19, 1996: Regional Trial Court dismissed petitioner’s complaint for legal redemption.
- September 14, 1995: (Note: chronological ordering in record) Petitioner instituted Civil Case No. C-17055 in the Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, alleging that the 30-day period for redemption under Article 1623 had not begun to run because the vendor never informed the co-owners of the sale.
- October 26, 1998: Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.
- February 16, 1999: Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- May 31, 2000: Supreme Court decision granting the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals, and ordering the RTC to effect petitioner’s exercise of legal redemption in Civil Case No. C-17055.
Procedural Posture and Prior Dispositions
- Respondent filed Civil Case No. 15510 against petitioner seeking her share in rentals; petitioner interposed redeeming interest as a permissive counterclaim and deposited the redemption price, but the main action was dismissed after respondent was declared non-suited, causing petitioner’s counterclaim to be dismissed as well.
- Petitioner later filed Civil Case No. C-17055 for legal redemption; RTC dismissed the complaint; CA affirmed; Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the notice requirement of Article 1623 was satisfied by respondent’s May 30, 1992 letter.
Primary Legal Issue Presented
- Whether the letter of May 30, 1992 sent by respondent to petitioner notifying her of the sale on August 8, 1986 of Adela Blas’s 1/5 share of the property to respondent, containing a copy of the deed evidencing such sale, can be considered sufficient compliance with the notice requirement of Article 1623 of the Civil Code for the purpose of legal redemption by a co-owner.
Relevant Statutory Provision (Article 1623, Civil Code) — Text as in Record
- "The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case maybe. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners. The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners."
Parties’ Contentions on Notice and Running of the 30-Day Period
- Petitioner’s position:
- The 30-day redemption period under Art. 1623 had not begun to run because the vendor (Adela Blas) never informed petitioner and the other co-owners about the sale.
- Petitioner learned of the sale only on August 5, 1992, upon receipt of summons and complaint in Civil Case No. 15510; petitioner deposited P10,000 on August 12, 1992 as redemption price and thus exercised the right within 30 days of actual knowledge.
- The central issue is whether notice from the vendee may substitute for the notice required to be given by the vendor.
- Respondent’s position:
- Petitioner had knowledge about the sale as early as May 30, 1992 because respondent sent petitioner a letter informing her of the sale and enclosing a copy of the Deed of Sale.
- On