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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 121039-45)

Applicable Laws and Relevant Articles

1987 Philippine Constitution as of the decision in 1993
Civil Code provisions:

Article 1088: Legal redemption by co-heirs of hereditary rights before partition, requiring written notice and exercise within one month
Article 1620: Redemption by a co-owner of a sold share of a common property to a third person, allowing redemption in proportion to ownership
Article 1144: Prescription or statute of limitations
Other pertinent rulings: Castillo v. Samonte, Garcia v. Calaliman, Conejero v. Court of Appeals, and Francisco v. Bautista

Factual Background and Procedural History

The decedent, Francisco Gosiengfiao, mortgaged the residential lot to the Rural Bank of Tuguegarao on multiple occasions before his death on August 15, 1958. Due to loan default, the bank foreclosed the property, which was awarded to the bank as highest bidder in the December 27, 1963 foreclosure sale. On February 7, 1964, co-heir Amparo Gosiengfiao-Ibarra redeemed the property by reimbursing the auction price and made full payment by December 1964. Subsequently, other heirs, including the widow Antonia and minor children, executed a deed of assignment of the right of redemption in favor of Amparo in 1965. Amparo then sold the property in 1966 to petitioner Leonardo Mariano, who established residence there. Leonardo further sold the property in 1982 to his children, prompting respondents to file a complaint for recovery of possession and legal redemption in December 1982.

Issue Presented

The primary legal issue concerns whether a co-owner who redeems the entire foreclosed property with personal funds thereby becomes the sole owner, terminating co-ownership, or whether redemption benefits all co-owners preserving their rights. An ancillary issue regards whether a legal redemption under Article 1088 (governing hereditary rights) or Article 1620 (co-ownership of common property) applies, together with the validity and timeliness of respondents’ exercise of redemption rights based on proper written notice requirements.

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court dismissed respondents’ complaint, ruling that the redemption by Amparo with her own money converted her into the sole owner, extinguishing the right of other co-heirs to redeem or claim ownership. It held that when the property was foreclosed and sold, other heirs’ rights were reduced to a right of redemption which they failed to exercise, thereby losing all ownership claims.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

The Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court’s ruling, holding that redemption by a co-owner within the legal period does not terminate co-ownership or confer sole ownership. Such redemption inures to the benefit of all co-owners, preserving their shares. The court emphasized that co-ownership continues despite redemption unless the property was purchased outright by a third party after the redemption period expired, consolidating a new title. Thus, Amparo’s redemption using her personal funds did not vest exclusive ownership but benefited all co-owners.

Legal Distinction Between Articles 1088 and 1620

The petitioners argued that Article 1088, pertaining to the sale of hereditary rights prior to partition, governed the redemption rights and that respondents failed to redeem within the one-month period requiring written notice of sale. The Court clarified the distinction: Article 1088 applies when the sale concerns hereditary rights in abstract without specifying property, while Article 1620 applies when a particular property or share is sold. Since no partition had occurred and the heirs remained co-owners, Article 1620 governs.

Written Notice Requirement and Redemption Period

The Court underscored the indispensable nature of written notice of sale required under Article 1088, citing precedent that verbal or informal notice cannot substitute for the statutorily mandated written notification. The petitioners failed to provide evidence showing that respondents received written notice of the sale. Respondent Grace Gosiengfiao’s unrefuted testimony showed she onl

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 121039-45)

Case Overview and Parties Involved

The case involves a dispute over the rightful ownership and redemption rights of a residential lot located at Ugac Sur, Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
The original owner was the late Francisco Gosiengfiao, who died intestate survived by his wife Antonia and several children, including plaintiffs-appellants (Grace, Emma, Ester, Francisco Jr., Norma, Lina represented by Pinky Rose, and Jacinto).
The defendants/respondents include Leonardo Mariano and Avelina Tigue, their children Lazaro Mariano, Dionisia M. Aquino, and others connected to the transactions.
The legal issue centers on the distinction and applicability of Articles 1088 and 1620 of the Civil Code regarding the right of redemption among co-heirs or co-owners.

Factual Background

The property was mortgaged several times by the decedent before his death in 1958, culminating in foreclosure due to unpaid loans.
The Rural Bank of Tuguegarao foreclosed and acquired the property at public auction in 1963.
Third-party defendant Amparo Gosiengfiao-Ibarra redeemed the property in 1964 by paying the redemption amount to the bank.
A deed of assignment of the right of redemption was executed by Antonia and some heirs in favor of Amparo in 1965.
In 1966, Amparo sold the property to Leonardo Mariano, who later resided on the lot.
Leonardo Mariano subsequently sold the property to his children in 1982.
Plaintiffs-appellants, upon learning of the sale, sought to assert their rights as co-heirs and co-owners by filing a complaint for recovery of possession, legal redemption, and damages.

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, ruling that after foreclosure and redemption by Amparo with her personal funds, she became the sole owner.
The RTC held that the other heirs’ rights were reduced to a mere right of redemption, which they failed to exercise, leading to their loss of ownership and possession claims.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, holding that the redemption by Amparo did not terminate the co-ownership but rather benefited all co-owners.
The CA reasoned that redemption within the legal one-year period by a co-owner does not vest sole ownership but maintains co-ownership status among heirs.
The CA stressed the distinction between redemption of co-ownership interests (Article 1620) and legal redemption of hereditary rights before partition (Article 1088).
The CA declared the respondents as co-owners entitled to redeem their respective shares.

Legal Issues Examined

The main legal question was whether redemption by a co-owner with personal funds results in sole ownership or preserves the co-ownership status.
Whether the right of legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code was timely exercised, considering the absence or presence of written notice.
The appropriate application of Articles 1088 and 1620 of the Civil Code depending on the nature of the sale—whether the right sold was an interest in a specific property or a hereditary right itself.
The necessity and effect of written notice for t