Pascual vs. Ballesteros

The 30-day period to exercise the right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code commences only upon written notice of the sale by the vendor, and actual knowledge of the sale by the redemptioner does not satisfy the statutory requirement or trigger the redemption period.

A 1,539-square-meter parcel of land situated in Barangay Sta. Maria, Laoag City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-30375, was co-owned by three groups: the Spouses Albino and Margarita Corazon Mariano (330 sqm), Angela Melchor (466.5 sqm), and the Spouses Melecio and Victoria Melchor (796.5 sqm). Upon the death of the Spouses Melchor, their share was inherited by their daughter, respondent Lorenza Melchor Ballesteros. Respondent Spouses Ballesteros subsequently acquired Angela Melchor's share via an Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale dated October 1, 1986. On August 11, 2000, Margarita, then widowed, and her children sold their 330-square-meter share to petitioners Spouses Pascual and Francisco.

• The Co-owned Property: The subject property, a 1,539-square-meter parcel of land in Laoag City covered by TCT No. T-30375, was owned in undivided shares by three groups: the Spouses Albino and Margarita Corazon Mariano (330 sqm), Angela Melchor (466.5 sqm), and the Spouses Melecio and Victoria Melchor (796.5 sqm).
• Consolidation of Shares: Upon the death of the Spouses Melecio and Victoria Melchor, their 796.5-square-meter share was inherited by their daughter, Lorenza Melchor Ballesteros. Subsequently, Lorenza and her husband, respondent Antonio Ballesteros, acquired the 466.5-square-meter share of Angela Melchor through an Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale dated October 1, 1986.
• The Sale to Petitioners: On August 11, 2000, Margarita Corazon Mariano, then widowed, together with her children, sold their 330-square-meter share in the subject property to petitioners Spouses Roman and Mercedita Pascual and Francisco Pascual. Petitioners thereafter caused the cancellation of TCT No. T-30375, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. T-32522 in the names of the petitioners, Angela Melchor, and the Spouses Melchor.
• Demand for Redemption: Claiming they did not receive any written notice of the sale to the petitioners, respondents filed a complaint for legal redemption in the RTC of Laoag City. Respondents asserted their right as co-owners to redeem the portion of the property sold to the petitioners under Article 1620 of the Civil Code. Petitioners countered that no co-ownership existed because the respective shares of the registered owners had already been particularized, specified, and subdivided, and alternatively, that the right to redeem had prescribed due to respondents' actual knowledge of the sale.

• Absence of Co-ownership: Petitioners argued that their predecessors-in-interest and the respondents were not co-owners of the subject property because their respective shares therein had already been particularized, specified, and subdivided.
• Forfeiture of Right of Redemption: Petitioners maintained that even assuming the existence of co-ownership, respondents could no longer exercise their right of redemption having failed to do so within 30 days from actual knowledge of the sale.

• Right of Legal Redemption: Respondents countered that they are entitled to redeem the sold portion as co-owners of the subject property.
• Necessity of Written Notice: Respondents argued that the 30-day redemption period had not commenced because they did not receive any written notice of the sale from the vendors, as mandated by Article 1623 of the Civil Code.

• Co-ownership: Whether the respondents and the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners are co-owners of the subject property.
• Written Notice Requirement: Whether the 30-day period to exercise the right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code commences upon actual knowledge of the sale or only upon written notice by the vendor.

• Co-ownership: The existence of co-ownership was affirmed. The issue raised by the petitioners is a question of fact, proscribed in a Rule 45 petition which allows only questions of law. Furthermore, both the RTC and the CA found that the subject property was co-owned, the shares not having been particularized, specified, or subdivided. Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
• Written Notice Requirement: The 30-day redemption period had not commenced due to the absence of written notice. Article 1623 of the Civil Code mandates written notice from the vendor for the redemption period to begin. Actual knowledge of the sale acquired by the redemptioner in some other manner does not satisfy the statute. Written notice is exacted by the Code to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms, and its validity, and to quiet any doubts that the alienation is not definitive. Because respondents did not receive written notice of the sale, the 30-day period never began to run, preserving their right to redeem.

• Mandatory Written Notice for Legal Redemption — Under Article 1623 of the Civil Code, the right of legal pre-emption or redemption must be exercised within 30 days from notice in writing by the vendor. The written notice requirement is mandatory and indispensable; actual knowledge of the sale by the redemptioner does not substitute for written notice. The law requires written notice to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms, its validity, and to quiet any doubts that the alienation is not definitive. The method of notification prescribed by the statute is exclusive, the law not having provided for any alternative.
• Conclusiveness of Factual Findings — Findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting a review of such facts.

• "With regard to the written notice, we agree with petitioners that such notice is indispensable, and that, in view of the terms in which Article of the Philippine Civil Code is couched, mere knowledge of the sale, acquired in some other manner by the redemptioner, does not satisfy the statute. The written notice was obviously exacted by the Code to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and its validity, and to quiet any doubts that the alienation is not definitive. The statute not having provided for any alternative, the method of notification prescribed remains exclusive." (Quoting Conejero v. Court of Appeals)
• "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." (Quoting Verdad v. Court of Appeals)

• Conejero v. Court of Appeals — Followed. Established the doctrine that written notice is indispensable for legal redemption and mere knowledge of the sale does not satisfy the statute.
• Verdad v. Court of Appeals — Followed. Reiterated the mandatory character of written notice despite the co-owner's actual knowledge of the sale.
• Gosiengfiao Guillen v. Court of Appeals — Followed. Emphasized that in the absence of written notification by the vendors, the 30-day redemption period does not begin to run.
• Barcellano v. Bañas, G.R. No. 165287 (September 14, 2011) — Followed. Reaffirmed that without written notice, the 30-day period for legal pre-emption does not start.
• Bormaheco, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Co. Inc., G.R. No. 156599 (July 26, 2010) — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive.
• Vda. De Formoso v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 154704 (June 1, 2011) — Cited for the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact.

• Article 1623, Civil Code — Provides that the right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within 30 days from notice in writing by the vendor. Applied to rule that the absence of written notice prevented the 30-day period from running, thereby allowing respondents to exercise their right of redemption despite their actual knowledge of the sale.
• Section 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court — Provides that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. Applied to decline review of the petitioners' first argument, which entailed a question of fact regarding the existence of co-ownership.

Antonio T. Carpio, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.