GR L 4229; (May, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4229 May 29, 1952
DALMACIO FALCASANTOS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HOW SUY CHING, ETC., defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Dalmacio Falcasantos filed an action for legal redemption against How Suy Ching, as administratrix of the estate of Tan Kiok, in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. The property in question consisted of Lots Nos. 154 and 52 in Zamboanga City, which were undivided property owned in equal shares by Leonarda Falcasantos, Dalmacio Falcasantos, and Josefa Falcasantos. On December 1, 1934, Leonarda Falcasantos sold her share to Tan Kiok for P420, but this sale was never registered. The plaintiff offered to redeem the property from the defendant by paying the same sum, but the defendant refused. The parties submitted the case on the pleadings without presenting any evidence. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to convey the rights to the plaintiff upon payment of P420. The defendant appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff’s right of legal redemption under Article 1524 of the old Civil Code is barred because he had knowledge of the sale more than nine days before filing the complaint.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the complaint. The Court held that when parties submit a case on the pleadings without offering evidence, the plaintiff is deemed to admit the material allegations in the answer. The defendant’s answer alleged that the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale “long before nine days prior to the filing of the complaint.” Article 1524 of the old Civil Code provides that the right of legal redemption must be exercised within nine days from the inscription in the Registry or, in its absence, from the time the redemptioner had knowledge of the sale. Since the sale was not registered, the nine-day period commenced from the plaintiff’s knowledge. The Court concluded that the plaintiff, having admitted knowledge of the sale well beyond the nine-day period prior to filing the complaint, lost his right of legal redemption. Additionally, the complaint was fatally defective for failing to allege that the offer to redeem was made within the nine-day period from knowledge of the sale. The insinuation that the sale was invalid because the purchaser was not a Filipino citizen was dismissed, as the sale occurred before the Constitution’s limitation took effect and such limitation is not retroactive.