Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 266 views

    CD186269

    Uploaded by

    Nympha Andres
    This case involves a parcel of land originally owned by multiple parties that was inherited and purchased by different individuals over time. The respondents claimed co-ownership of the land and filed for legal redemption of the portion sold to the petitioners, arguing they did not receive written notice of the sale. The trial court denied the redemption claim but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding co-ownership and that written notice was required to trigger the 30-day redemption period. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, emphasizing the requirement for written notice to exercise the right of redemption under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CD186269

    Uploaded by

    Nympha Andres
    266 views1 page
    This case involves a parcel of land originally owned by multiple parties that was inherited and purchased by different individuals over time. The respondents claimed co-ownership of the land and filed for legal redemption of the portion sold to the petitioners, arguing they did not receive written notice of the sale. The trial court denied the redemption claim but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding co-ownership and that written notice was required to trigger the 30-day redemption period. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, emphasizing the requirement for written notice to exercise the right of redemption under the Civil Code.

    Original Description:

    CASE DIGEST: Sps. Pascual, et al. vs Sps. Ballesteros, et al. G.R. No. 186269

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a parcel of land originally owned by multiple parties that was inherited and purchased by different individuals over time. The respondents claimed co-ownership of the land and filed for legal redemption of the portion sold to the petitioners, arguing they did not receive written notice of the sale. The trial court denied the redemption claim but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding co-ownership and that written notice was required to trigger the 30-day redemption period. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, emphasizing the requirement for written notice to exercise the right of redemption under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    266 views1 page

    CD186269

    Uploaded by

    Nympha Andres
    This case involves a parcel of land originally owned by multiple parties that was inherited and purchased by different individuals over time. The respondents claimed co-ownership of the land and filed for legal redemption of the portion sold to the petitioners, arguing they did not receive written notice of the sale. The trial court denied the redemption claim but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding co-ownership and that written notice was required to trigger the 30-day redemption period. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, emphasizing the requirement for written notice to exercise the right of redemption under the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Sps. Pascual, et al. vs Sps. Ballesteros, et al.

    G.R. No. 186269

    Petitioners: SPOUSES ROMAN A. PASCUAL and MERCEDITA R. PASCUAL, FRANCISCO A.


    PASCUAL, MARGARITA CORAZON D. MARIANO, EDWIN D. MARIANO and DANNY R. MARIANO

    Respondents: SPOUSES ANTONIO BALLESTEROS and LORENZA MELCHOR-BALLESTEROS

    FACTS
    Petitioners/spouses Pascual and Francisco, et al. filed a review on
    certiorari assailing the 2008 and 2009 decisions of the Court of Appeals.
    This case involves a 1,539 square meter parcel of land covered by Transfer
    Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-30375 owned by spouses Albino and Margarita
    Corazon Mariano, Angela Melchor and spouses Melecio and Victoria Melchor.
    Upon the death of the Melchors, the land was inherited by their
    daughter/respondent Lorenza Melchor Ballesteros. She and her husband Antonio
    Ballesteros also acquired Angela's share through and Affidavit of Extrajudicial
    Settlement with Absolute Sale.
    The widowed Margarita Mariano and her children sold their share to Spouses
    Pascual and Francisco causing the cancellation of TCT 30375. TCT T-325226 was
    issued in their names together with Angela and spouses Melchor.
    Respondents/spouses Ballesteros claimed that they did not receive any written
    notice of sale and filed for legal redemption with the Laoag RTC claiming that they
    are entitled to redeem the portion sold to spouses Pascual and Francisco.
    Petitioners claimed THERE WAS NO CO-OWNERSHIP considering that the land had
    been particularized and subdivided; respondents have no right to redeem portion of
    the property being sold.
    Respondents filed a complaint for legal redemption but was denied by the RTC
    in 2007. Although the RTC held that both petitioners and respondents are co-owners
    of the subject property, it asserted that the respondents had ACTUAL NOTICE of the
    said sale but failed to seasonably exercise their right of redemption within the
    30-day period pursuant to Article 1623 of the Civil Code. This prompted the
    respondents to appeal to CA.
    CA granted appeal of respondents and and reversed the RTC's 2007 decision. CA
    approved the respondents' legal redemption of the portion in litigation and held
    that 30-day period had not yet lapsed considering the absence of a written notice
    of the said sale.
    Petitioners sought for reconsideration but denied by CA.
    Then, petitioners instituted instant petition for certiorari before SC.

    ISSUE/S
    Whether or not the subject property is co-owned by the predecessors-in-
    interest and the respondents.
    Whether or not the respondents could still excercise their right of
    redemption.

    RULING
    The Court denied the petition and held and affirmed the Court of Appeals'
    decisions dated July 2008 and January 2009. The Court also emphasized the principle
    that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for
    interpretation.
    The Court stressed the RTC and CA's acknowledgment that the subject property was
    indeed co-owned by the respondents and the predecessors-in-interest of the
    petitioners. It emphasized the indispensability of the written notice requirement
    for purposes of the exercise of the right of redemption in accordance with Article
    1623 of the Civil Code. Thus, by not having received a written notice of the sale
    in favor of the petitioners, the 30-day period stated to exercise their right of
    redemption has not begun to run.

    You might also like