ROGELIO L. MADRIGAL AND GRACIA MADRIGAL PASTORES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS.SPOUSES MANUEL DE CASTRO AND EVANGELINE QUITAIN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Madrigal versus De Castro

The Case

This is the story of two siblings, Rogelio Madrigal and Gracia Madrigal Pastores, who sued the spouses Manuel de Castro and Evangeline Quitain to redeem a portion of family land that had been sold to the spouses without, they claimed, the written notice the law requires. The action is one for redemption and consignation under the Civil Code provisions on legal redemption among co-owners. The case matters because it draws the exact boundary of the written-notice requirement: when may a co-owner be treated as having been notified even without a formal writing, and when must the strict letter of the law be applied so that one co-owner's notice is not stretched to cover another who never received it.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs first filed a complaint for ejectment before the Municipal Trial Court of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. In their answer in that ejectment case, the defendant spouses disclosed that they had bought the property from Elisa Gois, acting as executrix of the estate of Angel Lopez. Learning of the sale only then, the plaintiffs filed a complaint for redemption and consignation before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Calapan City, and on the same day consigned a check for 300,000 pesos.

After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint. It held that the exchange of letters between the lawyers of the parties amounted to substantial compliance with the notice requirement, that the plaintiffs became co-owners only upon the death of their mother in September 1995, and that their thirty-day period to redeem had therefore long prescribed by the time they sued in June 1996. The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the finding of prescription, the ruling that the letter of February 9, 1993 substantially complied with the notice requirement, and the extension of that constructive notice to Gracia Madrigal Pastores, who was never actually notified.

Facts

The land was originally registered under Original Certificate of Title No. RO-128 in the names of Luciano Lopez and Felisa Martinez, who held a two-thirds share, and Juan Martinez, who held one-third. In March 1986 the original title was cancelled: Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-32996 for Lot A was issued to the defendant spouses after they bought the one-third share of Juan Martinez, while Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-32997 for Lot B, covering the two-thirds share, was issued to the spouses Luciano Lopez and Felisa Martinez. Those spouses died intestate, and their children were Angel Lopez and Remedios Lopez Madrigal, who also later died. Remedios was survived by the plaintiffs, her children, while Angel was survived by her daughter Angeline Lopez.

Elisa Gois, mother of Angeline and administratrix of the estate of Angel Lopez, sold a portion of the property, corresponding to Angeline's share, to the defendant spouses. The sale was made under a deed executed on July 1, 1989, for a total consideration of 300,000 pesos. Before the sale, on February 9, 1993, the lawyer for Elisa Gois wrote a letter addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Rogelio Madrigal informing them of the intention to sell the property to the defendant spouses. The lawyer for the Madrigals replied, asking that the sale be held in abeyance until the question of ownership was finally settled.

The plaintiffs claimed they never received written notice of the sale and learned of it only on May 23, 1996, upon receiving the answer of the defendant spouses in the ejectment case. They then sued to redeem and consigned the amount of 300,000 pesos in court. The defendant spouses insisted that the 1993 correspondence was sufficient notice, and that in any event the plaintiffs were not yet co-owners when the letter was sent.

Issues

• Whether or not the right of redemption of the plaintiffs had already been barred by prescription.
• Whether or not the letter of February 9, 1993 constituted substantial compliance with the written-notice requirement of Article 1623 of the Civil Code.
• Whether or not the constructive notice arising from that letter may be extended to Gracia Madrigal Pastores, who was not actually notified.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1623 of the Civil Code provides:

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 both the thirty-day period and the written notice that starts it running, and it is the measure against which the 1993 letter and the timeliness of the complaint are judged.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the right of redemption had not prescribed. The general rule is that written notice is indispensable, and actual knowledge of the sale acquired in some other manner does not excuse it, because the written notice removes all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms, and its validity. The Court recognized only two exceptional cases where it had relaxed the rule: where the co-heirs lived with the purchasers in the same lot, and where the co-owner was actually present and was even an active intermediary in the sale. Here, the Court held that Rogelio Madrigal had in fact been actually notified through the 1993 correspondence, and that the death of his mother merely perfected his right of redemption, which he should have exercised without delay. As to him, the dismissal was affirmed.

On the second and third issues, however, the Court held that the letter was addressed only to Mr. and Mrs. Rogelio Madrigal, and that such notice could not fairly be extended to his sister Gracia Madrigal Pastores absent circumstances justifying a deviation from the general rule requiring written notice to all possible redemptioners. She was effectively notified only on May 23, 1996, the date she received the answer in the ejectment case, and since the complaint was filed on June 20, 1996, within thirty days from that date, her right to redeem had to be upheld. The Court also rejected the argument that she failed to exercise the right because she did not sign the verification, since verification is a mere formal, not a jurisdictional, requisite, and the policy of the law is to aid rather than defeat the exercise of the right of redemption. Finally, the approval of the sale by the probate court did not constitute sufficient notice, there being no proof of actual receipt of the order by the plaintiffs.

Doctrine

Written notice under Article 1623 is the general rule and is indispensable; actual knowledge of the sale acquired in some other manner does not dispense with it. The notice must reach all possible redemptioners, and notice to one co-owner cannot be stretched to cover another who was never notified, absent circumstances like those in the exceptional cases where the redemptioner lived with the purchaser or actively participated in the sale. The thirty-day period runs from the written notice, or from the date the redemptioner is effectively notified, and the policy of the law is to aid rather than defeat the exercise of the right of redemption, so that mere technicalities such as a missing verification will not defeat a substantive right.

Disposition

The decision of the Regional Trial Court was affirmed as to Rogelio Madrigal, but a new judgment was entered allowing Gracia Madrigal Pastores to exercise her right of redemption, with the defendant spouses ordered to accept the redemption price of 300,000 pesos already consigned in court.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: written notice to all possible redemptioners is indispensable, and notice to one co-owner does not bind another. Examiners use this case to test the strict written-notice requirement under Article 1623, its narrow exceptions, and the rule that redemption is favored over technicalities.