While it is true that the Civil Code states the sale of real property… must be embodied in a public document, the Supreme Court said such requirement is not essential for the document’s validity or enforceability…
While it is true that the Civil Code states the sale of real property… must be embodied in a public document, the Supreme Court said such requirement is not essential for the document’s validity or enforceability…
In the case of Go v. Spouses Ko, Davidson Go (Go) instituted a Petition for the consolidation of title over a property located in Brgy. Damayang Lagi, New Manila, Quezon City under his name in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 59729, and the issuance of a new title in his favor (G.R. 253355, Nov. 8, 2023).
Go alleged he “purchased the subject property in a tax delinquency auction sale conducted by the City Government of Quezon City on April 7, 2011… [and]… he became the lawful and absolute owner of the subject property when Spouses Ko failed to validly redeem it within a year from the date of sale…”
“As for Spouses Ko, they countered that they are the owners of the subject property… on which their townhouse was erected.
“They averred that they bought the parcel of land from Lexus Development, Inc. by virtue of an undated Deed of Absolute Sale and they have resided thereon from the year 1996 until the present.”
“Moreover, Spouses Ko contended that: (i) they only learned about the auction sale of the subject property due to tax delinquency on March 13, 2012… ; and (iii) they validly redeemed the property… within the one-year redemption period under… the ‘Local Government Code of 1991’ (RA 7160).”
“The RTC ruled there was no valid redemption on the part of Spouses Ko, in the absence of any evidence that Lexus, the delinquent registered owner of the subject property, had authorized them to pay the amount stated in the Notice of Redemption… [T]hus, the RTC concluded that the one-year redemption period expired…” effectively granting Go’s Petition.
However, the Court of Appeals “granted the appeal and reversed and set aside the RTC Decision and Resolution” [directing] “the City Treasurer’s Office to receive the settlement of the redemption price of the subject property, to invalidate the Certificate of Sale it issued to Go, and to issue a certificate of redemption to Spouses Ko pursuant to Section 261 of RA 7160.”
Adopting the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court declared that “the Deed of Absolute Sale in question is valid and binding between Janet and Lexus even though the document was never notarized.
“While it is true that Article 1358 of the Civil Code states that the sale of real property… must be embodied in a public document, such requirement is not essential for the document’s validity or enforceability…”
“In other words, although the sale of the subject property in the case was not made in a public document, the conveyance remains valid and produces legal effects between the parties, including the transfer of real rights over the property from Lexus, the registered owner, to Janet, the buyer.”
“Under the circumstances, it is clear that Spouses Ko had the right to redeem the subject property as the owners thereof notwithstanding the fact that the title had yet to be transferred under their own names.”
It is undisputed that Spouses Ko paid the redemption price as computed by the City Treasurer’s Office within the one-year redemption period.
