Case Summary (G.R. No. 219556)
Applicable Law
Article 1623 of the New Civil Code provides that the right of legal pre-emption or redemption can only be exercised within thirty (30) days from written notice by the vendor or prospective vendor. The law requires that the deed of sale shall not be recorded unless accompanied by the vendor’s affidavit confirming that written notice was given to all possible redemptioners.
Factual Background
In 1992, respondent Ricardo Rama sold his one-fourth undivided share in the property to Spouses Nogra, payable in installments. The sale was finalized by a Deed of Absolute Sale in 2001, but petitioners Hermelina and Baby Rama Lauron claimed they did not receive written notice. Knowledge of the sale was allegedly only obtained after barangay conciliation proceedings in 2007. Hermelina sought to redeem the share but was initially denied a copy of the deed and other sale details. Following the conciliation, she received a copy of the deed on September 26, 2007, and subsequently filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Redemption, and Other Reliefs on October 16, 2007, and consigned the full redemption price on October 26, 2007.
Trial Court Ruling
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that the required written notice under Article 1623 was not given until September 26, 2007, when Hermelina was furnished a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale by Ricardo Rama. The court held that the postal registry return slip from 1992 was insufficient to prove written notice. It further ruled that knowledge obtained during barangay conciliation was inadequate to trigger the 30-day redemption period. The RTC declared that Hermelina properly exercised her right of redemption within the prescribed period.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC ruling, finding that although a written notice was not sufficiently proven by the postal slip, Hermelina had actual knowledge of the sale by virtue of (1) Ricardo’s admission during the 2007 barangay conciliation and (2) her active involvement in ejectment proceedings against another co-owner, Lucina Rama. The CA held that actual knowledge sufficed to dispense with the written notice requirement, starting the redemption period between 1992 and 2007, thereby concluding Hermelina’s redemption right lapsed by the time she filed her complaint in October 2007.
Issue
Whether Hermelina validly exercised her right of redemption by filing the complaint and consigning payment within the 30-day period required under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code.
Supreme Court Ruling: Written Notice Requirement is Mandatory and Indispensable
The Supreme Court affirmed the mandatory and indispensable nature of the written notice requirement under Article 1623. It reaffirmed established jurisprudence that mere actual knowledge of the sale, acquired other than through a written notice from the vendor, does not satisfy the law’s requirement. The written notice is essential to remove all uncertainties concerning the sale, its terms, validity, and to appropriately trigger the 30-day redemption period.
Limitations on Dispensing with Written Notice: Alonzo Exception Explained
While the Court recognized an exception in the landmark case Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court—where actual knowledge and laches justified dispensing with written notice—such cases involve peculiar circumstances where co-owners had sufficient actual knowledge of the terms and existence of the sale, demonstrated by conspicuous acts of ownership by the buyer, and where reasonable inquiry was neglected over an unreasonable period. The Court clarified that this exception does not negate the general rule but applies only in rare and distinct situations to prevent injustice.
Application of Alonzo Exception Not Justified in this Case
The Court carefully distinguished the instant case from Alonzo, noting the absence of physical acts of dominion, concealment of sale particulars, and no showing that Hermelina had sufficient information to exercise the redemption right before receiving the written notice. The Court deemed the barangay conciliation admission insufficient to satisfy the written notice requirement because it lacked details of the sale terms necessary for the proper exercise of redemption.
Clarification on 'Actual Knowledge' and 'Written Notice'
The Supreme Court elucidated that actual knowledge must be comprehensive, including the details of the sale, to enable a co-owner to exercise the redemption right properly. Mere admission or oral knowledge is not equivalent to written notice as mandated by law.
Laches Doctrine in Right of Redemption Cases
Laches involves an unreasonable delay or neglect in the assertion of one’s rights despite having knowledge or means to ascertain facts. The Court stressed that laches, combined with actual knowledge of the sale and its terms, may justify dispensing with written notice. Absent such delay or neglect, the strict observance of the written notice requirement remains vital.
Supreme Court’s Final Decree
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, reinstating the RTC’s ruling that He
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 219556)
Nature of the Petition and Case Background
- The petition is a Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, contesting the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution that set aside the Regional Trial Court’s Decision.
- The core issue concerns the validity of the written notice given for the exercise of legal redemption rights under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code.
- The dispute revolves around the one-fourth undivided share of Lot No. 6034-C-2-H-4, situated in Barangay Guadalupe, Cebu City, registered under the heirs of Felix Rama, including petitioner Hermelina Rama.
- Ricardo Rama, one of the registered owners, sold his share to respondents Spouses Medardo and Purita Nogra in a transaction completed on July 13, 2001, but petitioners alleged they were not properly notified.
- Petitioners’ knowledge of the sale emerged only after conciliations sought at the barangay in 2007, following which Hermelina offered to redeem the share but was rejected.
- Subsequently, the Spouses Nogra surveyed the property indicating possession, prompting petitioners to demand and eventually receive a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale on September 26, 2007.
- Hermelina filed a Complaint for Annulment, Redemption, and other reliefs and consigned the full redemption price on October 26, 2007.
Legal Issue Presented
- The central legal question is whether Hermelina validly exercised her right of redemption by filing the complaint on October 16, 2007, within the 30-day redemption period mandated by Article 1623 of the New Civil Code.
- Article 1623 requires that the right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall only be exercised within thirty days from the written notice of sale by the vendor.
- The deed of sale shall not be recorded unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that written notice was given to all possible redemptioners.
Facts Relevant to the Notice Requirement
- Petitioners contend that they received no proper written notice of Ricardo’s sale until September 26, 2007.
- Respondents argue that Ricardo gave written notice to Hermelina in 1992, evidenced by a postal registry return slip, and that actual knowledge was furthermore obtained due to Hermelina's participation in ejectment proceedings against Lucina Rama, another co-owner whose share was sold.
- The barangay conciliation proceedings confirmed the sale and respondents demanded partition that was opposed by Hermelina.
- The Regional Trial Court found the postal registry slip and oral admissions insufficient to prove proper legal notice triggering the redemption period.
Regional Trial Court Decision
- The RTC ruled that the 30-day redemption period began only on September 26, 2007, when Hermelina was furnished a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale by Ricardo.
- The court emphasized the mandatory character of the written notice, rejecting claims that mere knowledge or postal registry slip sufficed.
- It declared Hermelina’s right to redeem valid and ordered respondents to execute a Deed of Redemption upon payment.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Rationale
- The CA reversed the RTC decision, granting the appeal of the Spouses Nogra.
- It agreed that the postal registry slip was insufficient as proof of written notice.
- However, the CA ruled that written notice may be dispensed with when actual knowledge is proven.
- It held that Hermelina’s actual knowledge arose not only from Ricardo’s admission during barangay conciliation in 2007 but also through her participation in ejectment proceedings against another co-owner.
- The CA reckoned the redemption period fro