G.R. No. 239859 , June 28, 2021
TEODORO RABAGO BALTAZAR, PETITIONER, VS. ROLANDO V. MIGUEL, PATROCINIO H. TOBIA, ANGELITO FLORES, HIPOLITO RUBIO, AUREA H. BRUNO, EDILBERTA ALBERTA H. RUBIO AND JOSE H. RUBIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Teodoro Rabago Baltazar (Baltazar) and the predecessors of respondents were pro-indiviso co-owners of a parcel of land. After the deaths of his co-owners, the respondent heirs sold their collective two-thirds (2/3) interest in the property to respondent Rolando V. Miguel (Miguel) in September 2003 for P200,000.00 without giving Baltazar a written notice of the sale. Baltazar learned of the sale and offered to redeem the property from Miguel for an amount exceeding the purchase price, but Miguel rejected the offer. Consequently, on February 2, 2006, Baltazar filed an Action for Legal Redemption against respondents. He attached a copy of the Deed of Adjudication with Sale to his complaint. The case lingered for over a decade without pre-trial. In December 2016, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing Baltazar’s complaint failed to state a cause of action due to his failure to timely tender or consign the redemption price. On January 20, 2017, Baltazar consigned the redemption price of P200,000.00 with the trial court. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that written notice was unnecessary as Baltazar had actual knowledge of the sale (evidenced by the attached deed) and that he failed to validly exercise his right of redemption due to the lack of timely consignation. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the dismissal, interpreting that Baltazar’s cause of action had prescribed and that he was barred by laches for filing the action almost ten years after the sale.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the dismissal of the Action for Legal Redemption?

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA decision, and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
The Court held that the 30-day period under Article 1623 of the Civil Code for exercising the right of legal redemption is not a prescriptive period but a condition precedent. While the written notice requirement has been relaxed, and actual knowledge suffices, it was only established with certainty that Baltazar had such knowledge at the latest on February 2, 2006, when he filed his action with a copy of the deed attached. Thus, he had 30 days from that date to exercise his right.
The valid exercise of the right requires either a formal offer to redeem or the filing of an action in court coupled with the consignation of the redemption price within the 30-day period. Although Baltazar consigned the price only in 2017, long after filing the action in 2006, respondent Miguel waived the ground of non-compliance with this condition precedent by failing to raise it as an affirmative defense in his Answer and by raising it only in a Motion to Dismiss filed more than ten years later. The defense of failure to comply with a condition precedent is waivable. Furthermore, laches did not bar the action, as Miguel failed to establish when Baltazar gained actual knowledge of the sale to conclude that the delay was unreasonable. The CA erred in treating the 30-day period as prescriptive.