“If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one“
“A CO-OWNER of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.” (Article 1620, Civil Code of the Philippines)
If “two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share…” (Op cit.)
“The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall be exercised within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be.” (Article 1623, Civil Code of the Philippines)
“The [Supreme] Court has been consistent in ruling that the required written notice by the seller is mandatory and indispensable for the 30-day redemption period to commence.”
“The written notice was obviously exacted by the [Civil] Code to remove all uncertainty as to the sale… and to quiet any doubts that the alienation is not definitive.” (Azurin v. Chua, G.R. 259662, April 23, 2025 citing Rama v. Spouses Nogra)
Hence “[i]t is proper to interpret the written notice requirement under Article 1623 as mandatory.”
“The law could have merely specified ‘notice’ if notice, through any form, is sufficient to trigger the 30-day period to redeem.” (Op cit.)
“It must be emphasized, however, that while written notice is mandatory for the 30-day period of redemption to run, the form of such written notice need not conform to any specific kind of format so long as it informs the co-owner of the terms and conditions of the sale, as well as its validity and efficacy.” (Op cit.)
In the case of Azurin v. Chua, Lot 236, the disputed property, was under the name of spouses Flaviano Azurin and Maxima Marcelino which was transferred [to] Antonio Azurin, Sr. (Antonio Sr.), their eldest son. By presenting notarized quit claims purportedly executed in his favor by his siblings, Antonio, Sr. was later able to transfer Lot 236 to his three (3) sons, namely: Antonio, Jr., Rafael, and Larry.
When Antonio Sr.’s siblings (Adelaida, Jose, and Juliet) discovered the sole adjudication made by Antonio Sr., they filed a complaint for recovery of property with nullity of documents and certificate of titles against Antonio Sr.’s three sons who were in possession of the property.
“The trial court adjudged Adelaida as the owner of one-fourth of Lot 236, covering an area of 169 square meters on the basis of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 15, 1984 executed by Antonio, Sr. in her favor.” Despite successive appeals the decision remained unchanged. (Op cit.)
“On the strength of the final and executory decision in her favor, Adelaida sold [her portion of the lot] to Carlito Chua (Carlito) on November 25, 2005. Afterwards, Lot 236 was surveyed and subdivided under a duly-approved subdivision plan.” (Op cit.)
“On January 27, 2010, Lot 236-A was segregated and [a new title] was issued in Carlito’s name. Afterwards, Carlito filed a verified complaint for recovery of possession with damages against [Antonio, Sr.’s children].” The trial court ruled in favor of Carlito. (Op cit.)
“Consequently, a writ of execution and a writ of demolition were issued against [Antonio, Sr.’s children]. Larry thereafter ceded his share in the disputed property in favor of [his siblings] Antonio, Jr. and Rafael.” (Op cit.)
“On March 28, 2016, Antonio, Jr. and Rafael filed a complaint for legal redemption with damages against Carlito” wanting to recover the portion sold to Carlito. The trial court dismissed the complaint. (Op cit.)
“Aggrieved by the trial court’s Decision, Antonio, Jr. and Rafael appealed to the [Court of Appeals]” which later denied the same. “According to the CA, the case for legal redemption was filed more than 15 years after the sale—way beyond the 30-day statutory period.’’ (Op cit.)
“[T]he written notice requirement under Article 1623 of the Civil Code may be dispensed with… due to the peculiar circumstances involved and the laches that had set in…” “[I]n the case at bar [it] show[s] that [Antonio, Jr. and Rafael] had sufficient knowledge of the sale and… that there is laches on their part.”
“[L]ot 236 was duly surveyed for the segregation of the subject property from it, [hence]… they would have known about the survey.” “Furthermore, [Antonio, Jr. and Rafael] had actual notice of the sale when [Carlito] filed an action for recovery of possession with damages against them.” (Op cit.)
The Supreme Court held “that [Antonio, Jr. and Rafael] had actual knowledge of the sale, at the latest, on January 27, 2010 [but] they filed the complaint for legal redemption with damages only on March 28, 2016. It took them six years and two months to file their complaint, [thus], [l]aches ha[d] set in against them.” (Op cit.)
