Verdad v. CA

G.R. No. 109972 (April 29, 1996)

Socorro Rosales reclaimed her lot from Zosima Verdad, affirming her heir status amidst redemption disputes.

Facts:

The petitioner, Zosima Verdad, purchased a 248-square meter residential lot (Lot No. 529, Ts-65 of the Butuan Cadastre) located in Butuan City. The private respondent, Socorro Cordero Vda. de Rosales, sought to exercise her right of legal redemption over this property, claiming her title through her late mother-in-law, Macaria Atega, who died intestate on March 8, 1956. Macaria had two marriages: the first to Angel Burdeos and the second to Canuto Rosales. At the time of her death, she was survived by her children from both marriages.

Socorro is the widow of David Rosales, one of Macaria's children from her second marriage. After Macaria's death, her estate, including the disputed lot, was inherited by her surviving children, including David Rosales. The heirs of Ramon Burdeos, Macaria's son from her first marriage, sold their interest in the lot to Zosima Verdad for P55,460.00, although a notarized deed indicated a sale price of only P23,000.00, which Zosima claimed was for tax purposes.

Socorro discovered the sale on March 30, 1987, and on March 31, 1987, she attempted to redeem the property by offering P23,000.00 to Zosima, who refused the offer, asserting that it was below the current market value of P80,000.00. After failing to reach a settlement through the Barangay Lupong Tagapayapa, Socorro and other private respondents filed an action for "Legal Redemption with Preliminary Injunction" in the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City on October 16, 1987.

The trial court ruled in favor of Zosima, stating that Socorro's right to redeem had lapsed. Socorro appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision, declaring her entitled to redeem the property.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether Socorro Cordero Vda. de Rosales had the legal capacity to redeem the property despite not being a direct heir of Macaria Atega.
  2. Whether the right of legal redemption was timely exercised by Socorro.
  3. Whether the lack of written notice of sale affected the validity of the redemption.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (Zosima Verdad):

    • Socorro, as a daughter-in-law, lacked the legal standing to redeem the property since she was not a co-heir of Macaria's estate.
    • The right of redemption had lapsed due to Socorro's delay in exercising it.
    • Actual knowledge of the sale should not substitute for the required written notice of sale, and the delay constituted laches.

  • Respondent (Socorro Cordero Vda. de Rosales):

    • Socorro argued that her right to redeem arose from her status as the widow of David Rosales, who was a co-owner of the property inherited from Macaria.
    • The redemption was timely as the thirty-day period had not commenced due to the absence of written notice of the sale.
    • The Barangay proceedings indicated her bona fide intention to redeem, and the tender of payment was sufficient.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Socorro, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court reasoned that:

  1. Socorro, as the widow of David Rosales, inherited his share of the property, making her a legal heir and co-owner. The right of redemption is available to co-owners when their shares are sold to a third party.
  2. The right of redemption was timely exercised since the thirty-day period had not started due to the lack of written notice of the sale, which is a mandatory requirement under Article 1623 of the Civil Code. The Court emphasized that actual knowledge of the sale does not negate the need for written notice.
  3. The Court rejected the argument of laches, stating that the circumstances surrounding the case did not support a finding of unreasonable delay.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The right of legal redemption can be exercised by a co-owner or legal heir, even if they are not direct heirs of the original owner.
  • Written notice of sale is a prerequisite for the commencement of the redemption period, and actual knowledge of the sale does not substitute for this requirement.
  • The Court reaffirmed the principle that the right of redemption is a statutory right that must be respected, and the absence of notice can extend the redemption period.