By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
A Co-Owner’s Right to Redeem
In the intricate world of property law, the rights of co-owners often lead to complex disputes. One such common area of contention revolves around the right of legal redemption, particularly when a co-owner sells his/her share. A recent Supreme Court decision, Azurin, Jr. v. Chua, G.R. No. 259662, dated April 23, 2025, sheds critical light on the long-standing requirement for written notice in such transactions and when it may be dispensed with.
The case originated from a complaint for legal redemption filed by Antonio Azurin, Jr. and Rafael Azurin, who were co-owners of Lot 236 along with Adelaida Azurin-Villanueva. After a separate case affirmed Adelaida’s one-fourth ownership, she sold her share to respondent Carlito Chua in November 2005. Subsequently, Lot 236-A was segregated and titled in Carlito’s name in January 2010, followed by Carlito filing a successful complaint for recovery of possession against the Azurins. Despite these developments, Antonio, Jr. and Rafael filed their complaint for legal redemption only in March 2016, arguing that they had never received the mandatory written notice of the sale from Adelaida, as required by law.
At the heart of the Azurins’ argument was Article 1623 of the Civil Code, which stipulates that the right of legal redemption must be exercised within thirty days “from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor”. Jurisprudence, as consistently reiterated in cases like De Conejero v. Court of Appeals, Verdad v. Court of Appeals, and Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Ballesteros, has firmly established that this written notice is mandatory and indispensable to trigger the 30-day period, aiming to remove all uncertainty regarding the sale’s terms and validity. The law, as interpreted, specifically requires a written form; mere knowledge acquired otherwise is generally insufficient.
However, the Supreme Court acknowledged that it has, in specific “peculiar circumstances,” allowed for an exception to this strict requirement. While the Court clarified that cases like Etcuban v. Court of Appeals and Aguilar v. Aguilar did not abandon the mandatory nature of written notice, it highlighted the seminal case of Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court. Alonzo allowed for the dispensation of written notice when there are peculiar circumstances that give co-owners sufficient knowledge of the sale and its particulars, coupled with laches on the part of the redemptioners.
Applying this exception to the Azurin case, the Court found that peculiar circumstances indeed existed, demonstrating the Azurins’ actual knowledge of the sale. First, being in possession of Lot 236, they would have known about the survey conducted prior to the segregation of Lot 236-A and the issuance of TCT No. T-175069 in Carlito’s name on January 27, 2010, which serves as notice to the whole world. Second, their actual knowledge was undeniable when Carlito filed a complaint for recovery of possession against them, an action based on his purchase of Adelaida’s share. Despite this knowledge, at the latest by January 27, 2010, the Azurins waited until March 28, 2016 – a period of six years and two months – to file their complaint. This unreasonable delay constituted laches, which is the failure to act for an unreasonable length of time, causing inequity due to inaction.
Consequently, the Court denied the Azurins’ petition, affirming the lower courts’ decisions. This ruling reinforces that while written notice remains the general rule for legal redemption, it is not an absolute barrier against the principle of equity. Co-owners with actual, demonstrable knowledge of a sale must still exercise their right to redeem within a reasonable period, especially when their inaction would lead to inequitable results or when their actual knowledge is proven through surrounding circumstances and a history of litigation. The decision serves as a crucial reminder for all co-owners: knowledge, even without formal written notice, imposes a duty to act diligently.