GR 95256; (May, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95256 ; May 28, 1991
MARIANO DISTRITO, LUISA DISTRITO, MARIANO CIMAFRANCA, EDUARDO DOMICIANO DISTRITO, ELIZABETH DISTRITO and SEGUNDINO CATIPAY, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO MIQUIABAS, PACITA MIQUIABAS, and ENRIQUE SAMSON, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves a parcel of land in Dumaguete City originally owned by Simeona Amistad and inherited pro-indiviso by her heirs. Petitioners purchased the undivided shares of co-heirs Catalina and Anecito Villamil in 1975. Private respondents, as co-owners, sought to legally redeem these shares, alleging they only learned of the sale in July 1984 when petitioners notified them of construction plans. They immediately offered redemption and, upon refusal, consigned the purchase price in court and filed an action for legal redemption.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling private respondents lost their right of redemption. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the right was properly exercised. Petitioners argue that private respondent Pedro Miquiabas, who acted as a middleman in the sale, had actual knowledge, and that the 30-day redemption period for all respondents had thus lapsed long before the 1984 action.
ISSUE
Whether private respondents properly exercised their right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals decision, ruling differently for each private respondent based on compliance with Article 1623. The law requires written notice from the vendor to co-owners to start the 30-day redemption period. The purpose is to ensure actual notice and remove doubt. However, exceptions exist when a co-owner has undisputed actual knowledge, rendering written notice unnecessary.
For respondent Pedro Miquiabas, the right was lost. The evidence showed he actively participated as an intermediary in the 1975 sale. His presence and involvement constituted actual notice equivalent to the written notice required by law. His redemption period began in 1975 and expired long before the 1984 suit.
For respondent Pacita Miquiabas, the right was upheld. There was no evidence she received written notice or had actual knowledge of the 1975 sale. Her first notice was the verbal communication from petitioners in July 1984. She filed the redemption action and consigned the price within 30 days from that notice. Therefore, her compliance with the legal requirement for exercising the right of redemption was timely and proper. The Court affirmed her right to redeem the subject shares.