HERMELINA A. RAMA AND BABY R. LAURON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. SPS. MEDARDO NOGRA AND PURITA NOGRA, AND RICARDO RAMA AND MARILES RAMA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Rama versus Nogra

The Case

This is a case about legal redemption among co-owners — what the law calls retracto legal de comuneros, the right of a co-owner to buy back a share that another co-owner has sold to a stranger. Hermelina Rama and her daughter Baby Lauron sued the spouses Medardo and Purita Nogra, together with Ricardo Rama and Mariles Rama, asking the trial court to annul a deed of sale and to allow Hermelina to redeem the undivided share of her co-heir Ricardo, which he had sold to the Nogra spouses. The case matters because it fixes the rule on the thirty-day period for redemption: the written notice required by the Civil Code may be dispensed with when the redeeming co-owner already had actual knowledge of the sale, and once that period lapses, the right of redemption is extinguished.

Procedural History

Hermelina Rama and Baby Lauron filed a complaint for annulment of deed of sale, redemption, and other reliefs with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7 of Cebu City. On 25 October 2011, the trial court rendered judgment in their favor, declaring that Hermelina was entitled to redeem Ricardo's share, and it found that the complaint filed on 16 October 2007 and the consignment of thirty five thousand pesos on 26 October 2007 were both within the thirty-day period counted from the written notice given on 26 September 2007. The Nogra spouses moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied the motion in an order dated 20 January 2012.

Aggrieved, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, since the appeal involved a question of law. The plaintiffs did not file their appellees' brief, and the case was deemed submitted for decision. The Supreme Court granted the appeal.

Facts

Felix Rama owned a parcel of land in Cebu City, and when he died intestate in October 1972, he was survived by his heirs: Hermelina Rama, Ricardo Rama, Lucena Rama Yamyamin, and Victoria Rama Fajardo. The heirs became co-owners of the undivided lot, and the co-ownership remained undivided up to the time of the case. Baby Lauron is the daughter of Hermelina.

On 10 September 1992, Ricardo sold his undivided share in the property to the spouses Nogra on installment, evidenced by a deed of provisional sale. Upon full payment, the parties executed a deed of absolute sale on 13 July 2001. Hermelina claimed she was never informed of the sale. She brought the matter to the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Barangay Guadalupe, Cebu City, which held proceedings on 25 July 2007 and 9 September 2007. In those proceedings, Ricardo admitted in the presence of the plaintiffs that he had sold his share to the Nogra spouses, and Lucena admitted that she too had disposed of her share to them. On 26 September 2007, the plaintiffs confronted Ricardo, who again admitted the sale and handed them a copy of the deed of absolute sale.

On 16 October 2007, the plaintiffs filed their complaint for redemption, and on 26 October 2007 they consigned thirty five thousand pesos as the purchase price of Ricardo's share. The Nogra spouses answered that Ricardo had served a written notice of sale on Hermelina as early as August 1992, as shown by a postal delivery return slip, and that the barangay confrontation confirmed the sale. Ricardo died before he could file his answer, and no proper substitution of party was made. The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs, crediting their claim that they learned of the sale in writing only on 26 September 2007. The defendants appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not Hermelina may still exercise her right of legal redemption over Ricardo's undivided share, which was sold to the spouses Nogra, when she had actual knowledge of the sale long before she received a copy of the deed of absolute sale.
• Whether or not the thirty-day period for legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code began to run from the date Hermelina acquired actual knowledge of the sale, even without a written notice.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1620 of the Civil Code provides:

ART. 1620. 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 rate. Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share they may respectively have in the thing owned in common.

This is the very source of Hermelina's claimed right, and its purpose is to provide a method for terminating the co-ownership and consolidating dominion in one sole owner.

Article 1623 of the Civil Code provides for the period within which to exercise the right of legal redemption:

The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.

This provision fixes the thirty-day period, and the Court had to decide whether that period runs only from a written notice or also from actual knowledge of the sale.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Hermelina had actual knowledge of the sale long before 26 September 2007, and that this knowledge defeats her claim of ignorance. The registry return slip presented by the defendants did not by itself prove receipt of a written notice, because it must be accompanied by the authenticating affidavit of the person who actually mailed it. But the Court was convinced by other evidence. Hermelina herself sought the assistance of the Lupon because she wanted to redeem Ricardo's share, and that fact alone proves she already knew of the sale. She had also intervened in an ejectment case against her co-owner Lucena and succeeded in parrying the writ of execution, which showed she was cognizant of the conveyances made by her co-owners. The parties were neighbors who met almost every day in 1992, the year of the sale, so it was highly improbable that she was unaware of it.

On the second issue, the Court held that the thirty-day period began to run from the time Hermelina acquired actual knowledge of the sale, sometime between 1992 and 25 July 2007, when the parties confronted each other at the Lupon. When she filed her complaint on 16 October 2007, the period had already expired and the right of redemption was extinguished. The Court stressed that it was not departing from the requirement of written notice but merely adopting an exception due to the peculiar circumstances of the case, and it quoted its earlier ruling in Si versus Court of Appeals:

Co-owners with actual notice of the sale are not entitled to written notice. A written notice is a formal requisite to make certain that the co-owners have actual notice of the sale to enable them to exercise their right of redemption within the limited period of thirty days. But where the co-owners had actual notice of the sale at the time thereof and/or afterwards, a written notice of a fact already known to them, would be superfluous. The statute does not demand what is unnecessary.

The Court added that the right of legal redemption belongs to the co-owner Hermelina, not to her daughter Baby Lauron, who actively participated in the trial without presenting the general power of attorney she claimed to hold.

Doctrine

A co-owner may redeem the share of another co-owner sold to a third person under Article 1620 of the Civil Code, but the right must be exercised within thirty days from notice in writing by the vendor under Article 1623. The written notice is a formal requisite meant to ensure that co-owners have actual notice of the sale; where the co-owner already had actual knowledge of the sale, a written notice of a fact already known would be superfluous, and the statute does not demand what is unnecessary. In that case, the thirty-day period runs from the time of actual knowledge, and once it lapses, the right of redemption is extinguished.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7 of Cebu City dated 25 October 2011 and its order dated 20 January 2012, and dismissed the complaint of the plaintiffs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: co-owners with actual notice of the sale are not entitled to written notice, because the statute does not demand what is unnecessary. Examiners use this case to test the exception to the written notice requirement under Article 1623 and the reckoning of the thirty-day redemption period from actual knowledge.