Photo from Unsplash | Hunter Newton
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The explicit requirement of written notice for legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code may only be dispensed with upon a showing that the co-owners already had sufficient knowledge of the sale and they were guilty of laches in the exercise of their redemption right. (G.R. No. 219556)
The controversy in Rama v. Sps. Nogra and Sps. Rama (G.R. No. 219556, September 14, 2021) involves an undivided portion of Lot No. 6034-C-2-H-4 registered under the Heirs of Felix Rama, namely: Petitioner Hermelina Rama, Respondent Ricardo Rama, Lucina Rama Yamyamin and Victoria Ram Fajardo.
On September 10, 1992, Respondent Ricardo sold his one-fourth undivided share to Respondent Sps. Nogra. Upon full payment, Respondents executed a Deed of Absolute Sale (DOAS) dated July 13, 2001. Petitioners claimed that they had no knowledge of the sale and that it was only through barangay conciliation proceedings conducted on July 25, 2007 and September 9, 2007 that Respondents confirmed the sale.
Petitioner Hermelina offered to redeem the property despite Respondents’ refusal to give a copy of the DOAS and its details. The offer to redeem was rejected. After the second day of the barangay conciliation proceedings, Respondent Sps. Nogra entered into the property and had it surveyed for partition, prompting Petitioners to confront Respondent Ricardo once again. Respondent Ricardo gave a copy of the DOAS and the Petitioners subsequently filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Redemption, and other reliefs before the RTC on October 16, 2007.
For their part, Sps. Nogra claimed that Respondent Ricardo gave a written notice of sale to the Petitioner on August 31, 1992. Likewise, Petitioner was apprised of the sale when the parties confronted each other before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa on July 25, 2007. According to them, these circumstances gave Petitioner actual knowledge of the sale of Respondent Ricardo’s share in as early as 1992.
The focal point of the controversy is the 30-day written notice requirement under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code, which states that 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 may be. 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 Supreme Court has been consistent in ruling that the required written notice by the seller is mandatory and indispensable for the 30-day redemption period to commence.
The written notice of sale is mandatory. This Court has long established the rule that notwithstanding actual knowledge of a co-owner, the latter is still entitled to a written notice from the selling co-owner in order to remove all uncertainties about the sale, its terms and conditions, as well as its efficacy and status.
The Court ruled that the explicit requirement of written notice may only be dispensed with upon a showing that the co-owners already had sufficient knowledge of the sale and they were guilty of laches in the exercise of their redemption right. Absent these factors, the strict letter of the law must apply – the written notice from the seller remains to be an indispensable requirement to commence the running of the 30-day redemption period.
In this case, the Court found that the Petitioner was not guilty of laches. In fact, she seasonably took steps to verify the sale and its particulars. Prelude to her right of redemption, she took the initiative to bring the parties together before the barangay to remove any question relating to the sale. However, she was refused to be given a copy of the DOAS, as well as the pertinent details of the sale. Hence, Petitioner cannot be faulted for exercising her redemption right upon receipt of the DOAS because it is only at that time when all the uncertainties as to the sale, its terms, and validity were settled. In all, the 30-day redemption period under Article 1623 should be reckoned from Petitioner’s receipt of the DOAS on September 26, 2007. Petitioner, therefore, validly exercised and enforced her right by filing the complaint for redemption on October 16, 2007, which is within the 30-day period under Article 1623. As well, the redemption price was consigned within the 30-day period on October 26, 2007.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.