G.R. No. 259662 , April 23, 2025
Antonio Azurin, Jr. and Rafael Azurin, Petitioners, vs. Carlito Chua, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves Lot 236-A, originally part of a property inherited by the siblings of Antonio Azurin, Sr. Antonio Sr. secured sole title in his name and later transferred it to his sons, petitioners Antonio Jr. and Rafael Azurin, among others. His sister, Adelaida Azurin-Villanueva, successfully litigated to recover her one-fourth share, a decision which became final. On November 25, 2005, Adelaida sold this adjudicated share to respondent Carlito Chua. Subsequently, the lot was subdivided, and a new title was issued in Chua’s name in 2010. Chua then filed and won an action for recovery of possession against the petitioners in 2014.
On March 28, 2016, over ten years after the original sale, petitioners Antonio Jr. and Rafael filed a complaint for legal redemption against Chua. They argued that as co-owners, they had a right to redeem the property and that the statutory period had not lapsed because Chua never provided the written notice of sale required by Article 1623 of the Civil Code. The Regional Trial Court dismissed their complaint, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioners’ right of legal redemption was already barred, notwithstanding the alleged lack of written notice from the vendor.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The Court held that while Article 1623 of the Civil Code generally requires written notice from the vendor to toll the 30-day redemption period, this formal requirement is not an absolute rule. It may be dispensed with under peculiar circumstances where the redemptioner has clear and actual knowledge of the sale and unreasonably delays action, resulting in laches.
The Court found such circumstances present. Petitioners had actual knowledge of the sale for years, evidenced by the subdivision survey on the property they possessed, the issuance of a new Torrens title in Chua’s name (which constitutes constructive notice to the whole world), and the prior recovery of possession case Chua filed against them in 2010. Despite this knowledge, petitioners waited for six years and two months after the issuance of Chua’s title, and over ten years from the 2005 sale, to assert their redemption right. This constituted unreasonable delay. Applying the doctrine of laches, the Court ruled it would be inequitable to allow redemption after such prolonged inaction, which prejudiced the buyer who had already secured a title and a favorable judgment for possession. Thus, the right of legal redemption was deemed forfeited.