Lauron v. Nogra

 

Lauron v. Nogra

G.R. No. 219556

September 14, 2021

FACTS:

The controversy involves a dispute over an undivided portion of a property in Cebu City, registered under the Heirs of Felix Rama, respondent Ricardo Rama, who sold his one-fourth undivided share of the property to respondents Spouses Nogra. The sale was finalized in 2001, in which the respondents executed a Deed of Absolute Sale. Petitioners claimed that they had no knowledge of the sale until they sought the assistance of the barangay. Respondent spouses refused to furnish petitioners of a copy of the deed, and it was not until September of 2007 that the petitioners were able to secure a copy of the same. The petitioners offered to redeem the property, but the offer was rejected. The petitioners then filed a complaint for annulment of sale, redemption, and other reliefs before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, in which they stated that Hermelina’s right emanated from the time of the receipt of the deed, and not during the barangay proceedings. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which set aside the RTC's decision. The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether Hermilina validly exercised her redemption right within the 30-day period of redemption by filing the complaint before the RTC on October 16, 2007.

HELD:

Yes. As held in the case of Barcellano v. Bañas, the explicit requirement of written notice may only be dispensed with upon a showing that the co-owners already had sufficient knowledge of the sale and they were guilty of laches in the exercise of their redemption right. Absent these factors, the strict letter of the law must apply — the written notice from the seller remains to be an indispensable requirement to commence the running of the 30-day redemption period. As an exception, in Alonzo, the Court yielded towards equity attended by the following factors: (1) peculiar circumstances that gave the co-owners sufficient knowledge of the sale and its particulars; and (2) laches on the part of the redemptioners. In the case at hand, Spouses Nogra did not demonstrate any physical act of dominion over the property that would have evoked Hermelina's inquiry on the alienation of Ricardo's share. Contrary to the CA's conclusion, Hermelina's participation in the ejectment proceedings against Lucina is irrelevant. That case is a separate proceeding pertaining to Lucina's share, which has nothing to do with the conveyance of Ricardo's share. Hence, Hermelina cannot be faulted for exercising her redemption right upon receipt of the Deed of Absolute Sale because it is only at that time when all the uncertainties as to the sale, its terms, and validity were settled.