Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

Guillen Vs CA The loan being unpaid, the lot in dispute was

foreclosed by the mortgagee bank, and in the


Petitioner: GRACE GOSIENGFIAO GUILLEN, foreclosure sale held on December 27, 1963, the
Deceased EMMA GOSIENGFIAO GALAOS, same was awarded to the mortgagee bank as the
Represented By Her Daughter EMELYN GALAOS- highest bidder.
MELARION, Deceased FRANCISCO GOSIENGFIAO, JR.,
defendant Amparo Gosiengfiao-Ibarra redeemed the
Represented By His Widow EDELWISA
property by paying the amount of P1,347.89 and the
GOSIENGFIAO, JACINTO GOSIENGFIAO, balance of P423.35 was paid on December 28, 1964
And Absentees ESTER GOSIENGFIAO BITONIO, to the mortgagee bank.
NORMA GOSIENGFIAO, And PINKY BUENO PEDROSO,
Represented By Their Attorney-In-Fact JACINTO On September 10, 1965, Antonia Gosiengfiao on her
GOSIENGFIAO behalf and that of her minor children Emma, Lina,
Norma, together with Carlos and Severino, executed a
Respondents: "Deed of Assignment of the Right of Redemption" in
favor of Amparo G. Ibarra appearing in the notarial
THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JIMMY HENRY F. register of Pedro (Laggui)
LUCZON, JR., In His Capacity As Presiding Judge Of
The Regional Trial Court, Branch I, Tuguegarao, On August 15, 1966, Amparo Gosiengfiao sold the
Cagayan, LEONARDO MARIANO, AVELINA TIGUE, entire property to defendant Leonardo Mariano who
subsequently established residence on the lot subject
LAZARO MARIANO, MERCEDES SAN PEDRO,
of this controversy. It appears in the Deed of Sale
DIONISIA M. AQUINO, And JOSE N.T. AQUINO dated August 15, 1966 that Amparo, Antonia, Carlos
and Severino were signatories thereto.
Petition Filed: At Issue In This Petition Is The
Timeliness Of The Exercise Of The Right Of Legal Sometime in 1982, plaintiff-appellant Grace
Redemption That This Court Has Recognized In A Gosiengfiao learned of the sale of said property by
Final And Executory Decision.
the third-party defendants. She went to the Barangay
Captain and asked for a confrontation with

FACTS: On December 8, 1982, defendant Leonardo Mariano


sold the same property to his children Lazaro F.
The petitioners, heirs of Francisco Gosiengfiao Mariano and Dionicia M. Aquino as evidenced by a
(petitioner-heirs), assail in this Rule 45 Petition for Deed of Sale notarized by Hilarion L. Aquino as Doc.
Review on Certiorari the January 17, 2003 decision
and September 9, 2003 resolution of the Court of On December 21, 1982, plaintiffs Grace Gosiengfiao,
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 63093.1 The assailed et al. [herein petitioner-heirs] filed a complaint for
CA decision ruled that the thirty-day period for the "recovery of possession and legal redemption with
exercise of the right of legal redemption should be damages" against defendants Leonardo and Avelina
counted, not from the notice of sale by the vendor Mariano [herein respondent-buyers]. Plaintiffs
but, from the finality of the judgment of this Court. alleged in their complaint that as co-heirs and co-
owners of the lot in question, they have the right to
The previous case where we recognized the recover their respective shares in the said property
petitioner-heirs' right of legal redemption is Mariano as they did not sell the same, and the right of
v. CA.2 To quote, by way of background, the factual redemption with regard to the shares of other co-
antecedents that Mariano recognized: owners sold to the

It appears on record that the decedent Francisco Defendants further contend that even granting that
Gosiengfiao is the registered owner of a residential the plaintiffs are co-owners with the third-party
lot located at Ugac Sur, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. defendants, their right of redemption had already
been barred by the Statute of Limitations under
The lot in question was mortgaged by the decedent to Article 1144 of the Civil Code, if not by laches.
the Rural Bank of Tuguegarao (designated as
mortgagee bank, for brevity) on several occasions On September 16, 1986, the trial court dismissed the
before the last, being on March 9, 1956 and January complaint
29, 1958.
On May 13, 1991, the CA reversed the trial court's
On August 15, 1958, Francisco Gosiengfiao died decision, declaring the petitioner-heirs "co-owners of
intestate survived by his heirs, namely: Third-Party the property who may redeem the portions sold" to
Defendants: wife Antonia and Children Amparo, the respondent-buyers. The CA denied the
Carlos, Severino and herein plaintiffs-appellants respondent-buyers' motion for
Grace, Emma, Ester, Francisco, Jr., Norma, Lina reconsideration;4 thus, they came to this Court to
(represented by daughter Pinky Rose), and Jacinto. question the CA's rulings.
The Supreme Court affirmed CA’s decision.

ISSUE: When did the 30-day period to redeem the


subject property start?

HELD:

The computation of the 30-day period to exercise the


legal right of redemption did not start to run from the
finality of the Mariano Decision, and that the
petitioner-heirs seasonably filed, via a writ of
execution, their notice of redemption, although they
applied for the issuance of the writ some eight (8)
months after the finality of the Decision. In seeking
the execution of a final and executory decision of the
Court, what controls is Section 11, Rule 51 in relation
to Section 2, Rule 56, of the Rules of Court. Before the
trial court executing the decision, Section 6, Rule 39,
on the question of timeliness of the execution,
governs. Eight (8) months after the finality of the
judgment to be executed is still a seasonable time for
execution by motion pursuant to this provision. The
writ, notice of redemption, and the tender of payment
were all duly served, so that it was legally in order for
the Sheriff to issue a Certificate of Redemption when
the respondent-buyers failed to comply with the writ
and to accept the notice and the tender of payment