CEGUERA TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGES

COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY
Highway 1, Francia, Iriga City

THEORIES OF CRIME
CAUSATION (CRIM211)

“CASE DIGEST”
GROUP 7:
BALBUENA, GLEN S.
SOTO, ROMEO JOSE B.
NILLO, JOMAR
PRIMA, ALJUNE
LLORIN, RALPH SILVESTER B.
 CEGUERA TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGES
COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY
Highway 1, Francia, Iriga City

Title of the Case: HERMELINA RAMA AND BABY RAMA LAURON, PETITIONERS, VS.
SPOUSES MEDARDO NOGRA AND PURITA NOGRA AND SPOUSES RICARDO RAMA AND
MARILES RAMA, RESPONDENTS.

Date Published:

Data Retrieved: September 14, 2021

Date Happened: September 10, 1992

Link: https//lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/sep2021/gr_219556_2021.html

SCENARIO
On September 10, 1992, Ricardo sold his one-fourth undivided share for ₱35,000.00, payable in
installments, to respondents Spouses Medardo and Purita Nogra (Spouses Nogra). Upon full payment,
Ricardo and Spouses Nogra executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 13, 2001. Petitioners claimed
that they had no knowledge of this sale. It was only when they sought the assistance of the barangay,
through conciliation proceedings conducted on July 25, 2007 and September 9, 2007, that Ricardo and
Spouses Nogra confirmed the sale. Hermelina offered to redeem the property despite respondents'
refusal to give a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the details about it.6 The offer to redeem was
rejected. Few days alter the second day of the barangay proceedings, Spouses Nogra entered into the
property and had it surveyed for partition. This prompted petitioners to confront Ricardo once again on
September 26, 2007, and there Ricardo gave them a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale. Petitioners then
filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Redemption, and Other Reliefs before the RTC on October 16,
2007.7 On October 26, 2007, petitioners consigned the full redemption price.

For their part, Spouses Nogra claimed that Ricardo gave a written notice of sale to Hermelina on August
31, 1992 as evidenced by a postal registry return slip.8 Likewise, Hermelina was apprised of the sale
when the parties confronted each other before the Lupon ng Tagapamayapa on July 25, 2007. In the
proceedings, Spouses Nogra demanded the partition of the lot so they could already take possession of
the portion bought from Ricardo, but Hermelina opposed the partition and counter-offered to redeem
Ricardo's share.9 Spouses Nogra also brought up the previous sale of Lucina's share in their favor as
another instance that gave Hermelina notice of the conveyances made by her co-owners. Spouses Nogra
recalled that Hermelina actively participated in the ejectment proceedings that they filed against Lucina.
For Spouses Nogra, these circumstances gave Hermelina actual knowledge of the sale of Ricardo's share
in as early as 1992.10 Thus, Hermelina exercised her redemption right beyond the 30-day period of
redemption under Article 162311 of the New Civil Code.12

In a Decision13 dated October 25, 2011, the RTC ruled that Hermelina was properly notified of Ricardo's
sale for purposes of redemption under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code only on September 26, 2007,
when Ricardo gave her a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale. The RTC emphasized that Article 1623
requires that the notice must be in writing and given by the vendor.1a ⍵⍴h!1 Hence, the running of the
30-day period of redemption was not triggered by Hermelina's knowledge of the sale obtained during the
barangay conciliation. Also, the RTC ruled that the postal registry return slip, without the letter itself, was
insufficient to prove that Ricardo notified Hermelina of the sale in 1992. The RTC disposed:

Hence, the Court declares that Hermelina Rama is possessed of the right to redeem the one-fourth share
of Ricardo Rama of Lot 6034-C-2-H-4, which was sold to Medardo and Purita Nogra on July 13, 2001, and
that the redemption was legally effected when on October 26, 2007, within 30 days from written notice
of the sale, she consigned with the Court the amount of [₱]35,000.00, the consideration of the sale.
Medardo and Purita Nogra are directed within ten (10) days to execute a Deed of Redemption over the
said one-fourth share of Ricardo Rama in favour of Hermelina Rama, and may, upon proof of delivery of
the said document to Hermelina Rama, withdraw the amount of [₱]35,000.00 consigned with the Court.

Aggrieved, Spouses Nogra appealed to the CA, insisting that: Ricardo mailed a written notice of the
provisional sale in 1992 to Hermelina as evidenced by the postal registry return slip; Hermelina had
sufficient knowledge of the conveyances made by her co-owners due to her participation in the ejectment
case against Lucina; and Ricardo's admission during the July 25, 2007 barangay conciliation was
sufficient to charge Hermelina actual knowledge of the sale. As such, Spouses Nogra argued that
Hermelina's right to redeem Ricardo's share had already lapsed when she filed the Complaint for
Annulment of Sale, Redemption, and Other Reliefs on October 16, 2007.15
 CEGUERA TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGES
COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY
Highway 1, Francia, Iriga City

Citing the cases of Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court,16 Spouses Si v. Court of Appeals,17 and
Aguilar v. Aguilar,18 the CA granted the appeal in its Decision dated January 26, 2015. Specifically, while
the CA agreed with the RTC that the postal registry return slip was not sufficient to prove that Hermelina
received a written notice of sale in 1992, the appellate court ruled that the required written notice under
Article 1623 of the New Civil Code may be dispensed with due to circumstances that have given
Hermelina actual knowledge of the sale of Ricardo's share. For one, during the barangay conciliation on
July 25, 2007, Ricardo had already admitted to Hermelina that he sold his share to Spouses Nogra. The
CA also considered Hermelina's active involvement in the ejectment case against Lucina to have given her
sufficient information on the conveyances made by her co-owners. Thus, the 30-day period of
redemption under Article 1623 should be reckoned sometime between September 10, 1992, when
Ricardo made the provisional sale, and July 25, 2007, when the parties stood before the barangay.19 The
CA then concluded that Hermelina belatedly exercised her right of redemption on October 16, 2007:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 7 of Cebu City dated 25 October 2011 in Civil Case No. CEB-33782 and its Order dated 20
January 2013 are hereby SET ASIDE.

In a Resolution21 dated June 10, 2015, the CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Meantime,
Hermelina died and was succeeded by Baby, who filed this petition. She maintains that a written notice is
mandatory and indispensable for the commencement of the 30-day period to exercise the right of
redemption under Article 1623.22 Whether Hermelina validly exercised her redemption right by the filing
of the complaint before the RTC on October 16, 2007.

In the face of the established facts, we cannot accept the private respondents' pretense that they were
unaware of the sales made by their brother and sister in 1963 and 1964. By requiring written proof of
such notice, we would be closing our eyes to the obvious truth in favor of their palpably false claim of
ignorance, thus exalting the letter of the law over its purpose. The purpose is clear enough: to make sure
that the redemptioners are duly notified. We are satisfied that in this case the other brothers and sisters
were actually informed, although not in writing, of the sales made in 1963 and 1964, and that such notice
was sufficient.

While we do not here declare that this period started from the dates of such sales in 1963 and 1964, we
do say that sometime between those years and 1976, when the first complaint for redemption was filed,
the other co-heirs were actually informed of the sale and that thereafter the 30-day period started
running and ultimately expired. This could have happened any time during the interval of thirteen years,
when none of the co-heirs made a move to redeem the properties sold. By 1977, in other words, when
Tecla Padua filed her complaint, the right of redemption had already been extinguished because the
period for its exercise had already expired.

The following doctrine is also worth noting:

"While the general rule is, that to charge a party with laches in the assertion of an alleged right it is
essential that he should have knowledge of the facts upon which he bases his claim, yet if the
circumstances were such as should have induced inquiry, and the means of ascertaining the truth were
readily available upon inquiry, but the party neglects to make it, he will be chargeable with laches, the
same as if he had known the facts."

It was the perfectly natural thing for the co-heirs to wonder why the spouses Alonzo, who were not
among them, should enclose a portion of the inherited lot and build thereon a house of strong materials.
This definitely was not the act of a temporary possessor or a mere mortgagee. This certainly looked like
an act of ownership. Yet, given this unseemly situation, none of the co-heirs saw fit to object or at least
inquire, to ascertain the facts, which were readily available. It took all of thirteen years before one of
them chose to claim the right of redemption, but then it was already too late.33 (Emphases supplied.)

The Court was, however, keen to clarify that its ruling was not meant to abandon the prevailing doctrine
on the indispensability of the written notice of sale from the seller:

We realize that in arriving at our conclusion today, we are deviating from the strict letter of the law,
which the respondent court understandably applied pursuant to existing jurisprudence. The said court
acted properly as it had no competence to reverse the doctrines laid down by this Court in the above-
cited cases. In fact, and this should be clearly stressed, we ourselves are not abandoning the De
Conejero and Butte doctrines. What we are doing simply is adopting an exception to the general rule, in
view of the peculiar circumstances of this case.34 (Emphasis in the original.)
 CEGUERA TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGES
COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY
Highway 1, Francia, Iriga City

Verily, this exceptional ruling must be taken in its proper context lest the purpose of the law be rendered
in vain. As will be discussed, several features of equity impelled the Court to exercise its equitable
jurisdiction. In other words, the Court merely opted to take exception from the "slavish obedience"35 to
"the letter that killeth,"36 and yielded to "spirit that vivifieth,"37 due to the manifest wrong or injustice
that would result if the strict letter of the law was to be applied in the given circumstances. Indeed, our
courts are not divided into that of equity and of law, but are vested with the power to administer both
law and equity;38 they are not powerless to determine a factual matter in accordance with both
standards of law and equity.39 We stress, however, that equity intervenes only when the strict
application of the law will no longer serve its purpose, but will cause injustice due to the exceptional
circumstances which were not contemplated by the legal provision.40 As we have stated in Reyes v. Lim:

Equity jurisdiction aims to do complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its
judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of the legal inflexibility of its statutory or legal
jurisdiction. Equity is the principle by which substantial justice may be attained in cases where the
prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate.

Since the law provides no remedy in cases 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, the Court yielded towards equity.

The peculiar circumstances contemplated are those that gave the co-owners sufficient knowledge of the
sale and its particulars so that they can properly exercise their redemption right. On this score, we
emphasize the rationale behind the mandatory written notice, i.e., "to remove all uncertainties as to the
sale, its terms, and its validity, and to quiet any doubts that the alienation is not definitive." Thus, mere
knowledge of the fact of sale is insufficient to serve the purpose of the law. Essential information on the
terms or particulars of the sale, such as the actual purchase price paid, is necessary for the
redemptioners to properly exercise their right of legal redemption. To be sure, it would be senseless to
compel co-owners to exercise their redemption right when they are ignorant of the terms or status of the
sale. In De Conejero, the Court considered, not only the redemptioners' actual notice of the sale, but also
their knowledge of the particulars of the sale:

Article 1623 does not prescribe any particular form of notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the
redemptioner. So long, therefore, as the latter is informed in writing of the sale and the particulars
thereof, the 30 days for redemption start running, and the redemptioner has no real cause to complain.
In the case at bar, the redemptioners (now petitioners) admit that on August 19, 1952 the co-owner-
vendor, Enrique Torres, showed and gave Enrique Conejero (who was acting for and on behalf of his
wife, Paz Torres) a copy of the 1951 deed of sale in favor of respondents Raffinans. The furnishing of this
copy was equivalent to the giving of written notice required by law; it came from the vendor and made
available in writing the details and finality of the sale. In fact, as argued for the respondents at bar, it
served all the purposes of the written notice, in a more authentic manner than any other writing could
have done. As a necessary consequence, the 30-day period for the legal redemption by co-owner Paz
Torres (retracto de comuneros) began to run its course from and after August 19, 1952, ending on
September 18, of the same year. (Emphases supplied.)

Moreover, actual knowledge of the sale and its particulars would likewise not suffice to disregard the
explicit requirement of written notice under the law. Such actual knowledge must, be coupled with laches
on the part of the redemptioner. Laches has been defined as "the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable
and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been
done earlier." It is not concerned only with the mere lapse of time, but with the inequity caused by the
relief-seeker's inaction.
 CEGUERA TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGES
COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY
Highway 1, Francia, Iriga City

SUMMARY

In sum, 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 apply48 – the written notice
from the seller remains to be an indispensable requirement to commence the running of the 30-day
redemption period. To be sure, in subsequent cases which adhered to the Alonzo doctrine, the Court was
heedful in not disregarding the purpose of the mandatory written requirement, and mindful of the
existence of laches. To cite a few, in Distrito v. Court of Appeals,49 the Court deemed the co-owner, who
acted as middleman and witnessed the execution of the deed of sale of the co-owner's share, to have
been sufficiently notified of such sale despite lack of written notice because his participation in the sale
removed all doubt as to its perfection and gave him all the necessary information to enable him to
exercise his right of redemption. Despite such knowledge of the sale, the redemptioner enforced his right
only after nearly a decade from the sale. In Aguilar, the redemptioner categorically admitted that he
knew about the sale of his co-owner's share, but he opted to exercise his right to redeem only seven
years thereafter. In Cabales v. Court of Appeals,50 the redemptioner was informed of the sale not only in
1988, but also in 1993, but filed a complaint for redemption only in 1995. In Escabarte v. Heirs of
Isaw,51 the co-heirs have already contested the validity of the sales for being violative of the
Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu; and the buyer had already been in open and continuous
possession of the property. The redemptioners' actual knowledge of the necessary details of the sale was
thus undeniable, but they opted to exercise their right more than a decade thereafter. Ostensibly, in all
these cases, the Court dispensed with the written notice requirement because the redemptioners were
proven to have sufficient notice of the sale and its terms, but they failed to enforce their redemption right
for an unreasonable period.

5W’s and 1H

Who: Petitioners: HERMELINA RAMA AND BABY RAMA LAURON Respondents: SPOUSES MEDARDO
NOGRA AND PURITA NOGRA AND SPOUSES RICARDO RAMA AND MARILES RAMA

What: On September 10, 1992, Respondents Spouses Medardo and Purita Nogra (Spouses Nogra) sold
Ricardo's one-fourth undivided an interest for ₱35,000.00, which was to be paid in installments. Ricardo
and Spouses Nogra signed a Deed of Absolute Sale on July 13, 2001, following full payment. The
petitioners said that they were unaware of this transaction. Ricardo and Spouses Nogra did not confirm
the sale until they asked the barangay for help through conciliation proceedings held on July 25, 2007,
and September 9, 2007. Hermelina made an offer to redeem the property, but it was turned down
because the respondents wouldn't provide a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale or any information about
it. In a Resolution 21 dated June 10, 2015, the CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Meantime, Hermelina died and was succeeded by baby, who filed this petition. She maintains that a
written notice is mandatory and indispensable for the commencement of the 30-day period to exercise
the right of redemption under Article 1623.

Where: Along V. Rama St. Barangay Guadalupe, Cebu City on September 10, 1992

When: This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court questions the
Decision 2 dated January 26, 2015 Resolution 3 dated June 10, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CV No. 04327 Decision 4 dated October 25, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City,
Branch 7 in Civil Case No. CEB-33782.

Why: The petitioners argue that for a period of time their family has owned the disputed property. To
strengthen their argument, they display faded pictures, old documents, and testimonials from elderly
relatives. They further contend that there is a clear custody line because their parents paid the required
taxes on the property. However, the responses offer an other account. They present a properly executed
and notarized document of sale, proving that the land was bought by them from a distant cousin of the
petitioners. The responders also include payment receipts for the purchase with this document. They
contend that all legal procedures were followed and that the transaction was carried out in good faith.

How: It all began when the petitioners, unaware of any transaction, were surprised to learn about
the sale of the property in question. They claimed to have no knowledge of this sale until they sought the
help of the barangay, where conciliation proceedings were conducted on July 25, 2007, and September 9,
2007. It was during these proceedings that Ricardo and the Spouses Nogra confirmed the sale.

EXPLINATION
 CEGUERA TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGES
COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY
Highway 1, Francia, Iriga City

The Decision dated January 26, 2015 and Resolution dated June 10, 2015 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 04327 have been met with a reversal. Consequently, the Decision dated October 25,
2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. CEB-33782 has been reinstated.
This reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision and the subsequent reinstatement of the Regional Trial
Court's decision marks a significant turn of events in this legal case. It signifies the recognition of the
Regional Trial Court as the ultimate authority in determining the outcome of this particular legal dispute.
The decision and resolution issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04327 were likely based on
their own interpretation of the facts and arguments presented during the legal proceedings. However,
upon review, it appears that the Regional Trial Court's original decision was more closely aligned with the
law and justice in this case. The reinstatement of the Regional Trial Court's decision means that its
findings and conclusions have been recognized as correct and valid. This reaffirms the importance and
authority of the lower court in resolving legal disputes and ensuring justice is served. The fact that the
Court of Appeals' decision and resolution were reversed indicates that the higher court acknowledged
errors or inconsistencies in their previous judgment. Such reversals are not uncommon in the legal
system, as they allow for a fair and thorough review of all aspects of a case before a final ruling is made.
This reversal also demonstrates the checks and balances within the judicial system, where decisions
made by lower courts can be reviewed and corrected by higher courts. It ensures that the law is upheld
and justice is served to the best of the court's ability. The reinstatement of the Regional Trial Court's
decision also provides a sense of closure for the parties involved in this legal dispute. It signifies that their
arguments and evidence were properly considered and weighed, leading to a just outcome. The case's
factual background demonstrates that Hermelina acted appropriately by checking the sale's details. She
took the initiative to call the parties together before the barangay in order to settle any outstanding
issues about the sale, as a prelude to her right of redemption. She was, however, refused access to a
copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale and all relevant transaction information. As a result, Hermelina cannot
be blamed for using her redemption right as soon as she received the Deed of Absolute Sale, since it was
at that point that all questions regarding the sale's conditions and legitimacy were resolved. Keep in mind
that the written notice's clarity is crucial for ensuring in Alonzo's note that, "considering the shortness of
the period of redemption, it is really necessary, as a general rule, to pinpoint the precise date (the 30 day
period) is supposed to begin to obviate any problem of alleged delays, sometimes consisting of only a
day or two." 54 The redemptioner is duly notified of the sale, but they must also accurately determine
the date of the notice in order to determine the commencement of the 30th day period of redemption.

CORRELATION
In the case of Hermelina Rama and Baby Rama Lauron, Petitioners, vs. Spouses Medardo Nogra
and Purita Nogra and Spouses Ricardo Rama and Mariles Rama, Respondents, several legal issues arose
that required the examination of relevant evidence and the establishment of correlations between
different parties involved. The case revolves around a dispute over a parcel of land. The petitioners claim
ownership of the said land, alleging that they inherited it from their parents, while the respondents assert
their rightful ownership over the property. To establish the existence or absence of correlation, it is
essential to examine the various elements of the case and how they interrelate. One fundamental aspect
is the documentary evidence presented by both parties. The petitioners submitted a copy of their parent's
land title, which supposedly proves their ownership. On the other hand, the respondents presented their
land title, asserting their legitimate claim. Correlation between these two documents becomes crucial in
determining the rightful owner of the disputed land. The court must scrutinize the information contained
within each title, such as the property boundaries, names of previous owners, and any existing liens or
encumbrances. Another significant factor is the testimonial evidence provided by the parties involved.
Witnesses may be called to testify regarding the history of possession, acts of ownership, and
transactions related to the land. These testimonies can establish correlations between the actions of the
petitioners and respondents, shedding light on who has actually possessed and utilized the property. The
court must evaluate the credibility and consistency of these testimonies to determine which party is more
likely to have a stronger claim. In addition to documentary and testimonial evidence, expert opinions may
also be presented to establish correlations in the case. Furthermore, it is crucial to identify any
inconsistencies or contradictions within the evidence presented. Discrepancies between the testimonies of
the parties involved, disparities in the documents presented, or conflicting expert opinions can make it
difficult to establish a clear correlation. The court must carefully weigh and assess all the available
evidence to determine the most credible and coherent narrative.

COURT DECISION/RULLING OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court found merit in the petition and reversed the CA decision. The Court
reiterated that the written notice requirement under Article 1623 is mandatory and indispensable for
the 30-day redemption period to commence. The Court cited previous cases that emphasized the
importance of the written notice. The Court clarified that the exception to the written notice
requirement only applies when the co-owners already have sufficient knowledge of the sale and are
guilty of laches. In this case, the Court found that the peculiar circumstances contemplated in the
Alonzo case were absent. There was no physical act of dominion by Spouses Nogra that would have
given Hermelina sufficient knowledge of the sale. Hermelina also took steps to verify the sale and its
particulars before exercising her right of redemption. Therefore, the Court ruled that Hermelina
validly exercised her redemption right within the 30-day period. The Court reinstated the RTC
decision and ordered Spouses Nogra to execute a Deed of Redemption in favor of Hermelina.