May 31, 2000
Ponente: Mendoza, J.
FACTS
Adalia B. Francisco and three of her sisters -- Ester, Elizabeth and Adeluisa --- were co-owners of four parcels of registered lands on which stands the Ten Commandments Building at 689 Rizal Avenue Extension, Caloocan City. On August 6, 1979, they sold 1/5 of their undivided share in the subject parcels of land to their mother, Adela Blas, for P10,000.00, thus making the latter a co-owner of said real property to the extent of the share sold.
On August 8, 1986, without the knowledge of the other co-owners, Adela Blas sold her 1/5 share for P10,000.00 to Zenaida Boiser, who is another sister of Adalia's.
On August 5, 1992 (or six years after the sale), Adalia received summons, with a copy of the complaint filed by Zenaida demanding her share in the rentals being collected by Adalia from the tenants of the building. Adalia then informed Zenaida that she was exercising her right of redemption as a co-owner of the subject property. On August 12, 1992, Adalia deposited the amount of P10,000.00 as redemption price with the Clerk of Court.
On September 14, 1995, Adalia instituted a civil case before the Regional Trial Court in Caloocan City. She alleged that the 30-day period for redemption under Art. 1623 of the Civil Code had not begun to run against her since the vendor, her mother Adela Blas, never informed her and the other owners about the sale to Zenaida. She learned about the sale only on August 5, 1992, after she received the summons together with Zenaida's complaint.
Zenaida, however, contended that Adalia knew about the sale as early as May 30, 1992, because, on that date, she wrote Adalia a letter informing the latter about the sale, with a demand that the rentals corresponding to her 1/5 share of the subject property be remitted to her. Said letter was sent with a copy of the Deed of Sale between Zenaida and Adela Blas.
On the same date, letters were likewise sent by Zenaida to the tenants of the building, namely, Seiko Service Center and Glitters Corporation, informing them of the sale and requesting that, thenceforth, they pay 1/5 of the monthly rentals to Zenaida. That Adalia received these letters is proved by the fact that on June 8, 1992, she wrote the building's tenants advising them to disregard respondents request and continue paying full rentals directly to her.
TRIAL COURT: On August 19, 1996, the trial court dismissed Adalia's complaint for legal redemption. It ruled that Art. 1623 does not prescribe any particular form of notifying co-owners about a sale of property owned in common to enable them to exercise their right of legal redemption.
While no written notice was given by the vendor, Adela Blas, to Adalia or the other owners, Adalia herself admitted that she had received Zanaida's letter of May 30, 1992 and was in fact furnished a copy of the deed evidencing such sale. The trial court considered the letter sent by Zenaida to Adalia with a copy of the deed of sale as substantial compliance with the required written notice under Art. 1623 of the New Civil Code.
Consequently, the 30-day period of redemption should be counted not from August 5, 1992, when Adalia received summons in Civil Case No. 15510, but at the latest, from June 8, 1992, the date Adalia wrote the tenants of the building advising them to continue paying rentals in full to her. Adalia failed to redeem the property within that period.
CA: Affirmed RTC ruling..
RULING
CA ruling reversed.
Whether Adalia was able to validly exercise her right of redemption. – YES.
Art. 1623 of the Civil Code provides: "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."
In the present case, receipt by Adalia of summons on August 5, 1992 amounted to actual knowledge of the sale from which the 30-day period of redemption commenced to run. Adalia had until September 4, 1992 within which to exercise her right of legal redemption, but on August 12, 1992 she deposited the P10,000.00 redemption price. Adalia's exercise of said right was timely, so the same should be given effect..
Whether Zenaida's May 30, 1992 letter notifying Adalia of the sale on August 8, 1986 of Adela Blas's 1/5 share of the property to Zenaida, containing a copy of the deed evidencing such sale, can be considered sufficient as compliance with the notice requirement of Art. 1623 for the purpose of legal redemption. – NO.
The test of Art. 1623 clearly and expressly prescribes that the 30 days for making the redemption are to be counted from notice in writing by the vendor (seller) and not the vendee (buyer). This is the doctrine laid down by the Court in Butte v. Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc.
The reasons for requiring that the notice should be given by the seller, and not by the buyer, are easily divined. The seller of an undivided interest is in the best position to know who are his co-owners that under the law must be notified of the sale. Also, the notice by the seller removes all doubts as to fact of the sale, its perfection, and its validity, the notice being a reaffirmation thereof; so that that party notified need not entertain doubt that the seller may still contest the alienation. This assurance would not exist if the notice should be given by the buyer.
Art. 1623 of the Civil Code is clear in requiring that the written notification should come from the vendor or prospective vendor, not from any other person. There is, therefore, no room for construction. Indeed, the principal difference between Art. 1524 of the former Civil Code and Art. 1623 of the present one is that the former did not specify who must give the notice, whereas the present one expressly says the notice must be given by the vendor.
It makes sense to require that the notice required in Art. 1623 be given by the vendor and by nobody else. As explained by Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Butte, the vendor of an undivided interest is in the best position to know who are his co-owners who under the law must be notified of the sale. It is likewise the notification from the seller, not from anyone else, which can remove all doubts as to the fact of the sale, its perfection, and its validity, for in a contract of sale, the seller is in the best position to confirm whether consent to the essential obligation of selling the property and transferring ownership thereof to the vendee has been given.
It is clear that by not immediately notifying the co-owner, a vendor can delay or even effectively prevent the meaningful exercise of the right of redemption. In the present case, for instance, the sale took place in 1986, but it was kept secret until 1992 when Zenaida needed to notify Adalia about the sale to demand 1/5 rentals from the property sold.
However, the Court made an exception in this case by ruling that Adalia's receipt of summons from a case filed by Zenaida (who is the buyer, not the seller) constitutes actual knowledge on the basis of which Adalia may now exercise her right of redemption because the subject sale has already been established before both lower courts and the SC anyway.
DOCTRINE
The test of Article 1623 clearly and expressly prescribes that
the 30 days for making the redemption are to be counted from notice in
writing by the seller, not the buyer.
