1. This case involves a dispute between brothers Senen, Virgilio, and Angel over a house and lot purchased by Senen and Virgilio for their father.
2. After their father's death, Virgilio demanded that Senen vacate the property so it could be sold and proceeds divided. Senen refused. Virgilio filed a case, and the court ordered the sale and division of proceeds.
3. Years later, the property was sold to a third party. Senen then tried to exercise his right to legal redemption, but courts said his claim was barred due to laches since he failed to act within the required 30 days of the sale.
1. This case involves a dispute between brothers Senen, Virgilio, and Angel over a house and lot purchased by Senen and Virgilio for their father.
2. After their father's death, Virgilio demanded that Senen vacate the property so it could be sold and proceeds divided. Senen refused. Virgilio filed a case, and the court ordered the sale and division of proceeds.
3. Years later, the property was sold to a third party. Senen then tried to exercise his right to legal redemption, but courts said his claim was barred due to laches since he failed to act within the required 30 days of the sale.
1. This case involves a dispute between brothers Senen, Virgilio, and Angel over a house and lot purchased by Senen and Virgilio for their father.
2. After their father's death, Virgilio demanded that Senen vacate the property so it could be sold and proceeds divided. Senen refused. Virgilio filed a case, and the court ordered the sale and division of proceeds.
3. Years later, the property was sold to a third party. Senen then tried to exercise his right to legal redemption, but courts said his claim was barred due to laches since he failed to act within the required 30 days of the sale.
CASE ANALYSIS Submitted by: Magaipo, Marvin Ang, 06 Sept. 2013
Case Title: Aguilar v. Aguilar, 478 SCRA 187
I. PARTIES OF THE CASE:
Senen B. Aguilar, as petitioner; Virgilio B. Aguilar and Angel B. Aguilar, as respondents Alejandro C. Sangalang, as Intervenor-Respondent II. KEY FACTS: (This case is in relation to Aguilar v. CA, GR. No. 76351, Oct. 29, 1993, wherein the same parties and the same subject matters involved)
Facts of GR. No. 76351
1. The two brothers, Senen and Virgilio bought a house and lot in Paraaque City, a peaceful neighborhood for the benefit of their father, to enjoy his retirement days. (Oct. 28, 1993) 2. Senen lived with his father to attend his fathers need, and he was entrusted to continue for the payment of loan of the previous owner in SSS. 3. After the death of their father, Virgilio demanded Senen to vacate the house and that the property be sold, the proceeds to be divided between them. Senen, refused to comply. (1974) 4. Virgilio filed a complaint in CFI, compelling Senen of his demand. (Jan. 12, 1979) 5. During the Trial, neither Senen, nor his counsel appeared, so the trial court proceeded in ex- parte. 6. The Trial court, declared that the two brothers as co-owner of the subject property, the property be sold and the proceeds to be divided them equally. And at same time order Senen to vacate and pay rentals with interests from January 1975, as to the date when Virgilio demanded the Sale. 7. CA reversed the trial courts decision. 8. Virgilio made a petition for review to the Supreme Court.
2
Facts of GR. No. 141613
9. In accordance to GR. No. 76351, the property was sold to Alejandro Sangalang. Virgilio received his share and as well as the rental dues from Senen. 10. Senen, filed with the RTC, an action for legal redemption against Virgilio and another brother-Angel, who bought the share of Virgilio on 1989, alleging that as a co-owner he is entitled for legal redemption. (1995) 11. The RTC, dismissed the complaint for the reason of laches. seven years late, to assert his right. 12. CA, affirmed the RTCs order.
III. ISSUES:
1. In GR. No. 76351, WoN, Virgilios petition shall be granted, and he can compel Senen to vacate, or sale the property to other if he is not willing to purchase the share of Virgilio? 2. In GR. No. 141613, WoN, the action of Senen is barred by laches?
IV. HELD:
1. SC granted the petition, and reinstated the RTCs decision, as in conformity with Art. 498 of the Civil Code: Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds distributed. 2. The SC pointed Art. 1623 of the Civil Code: The right of legal redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from notice in writing by the prospective vendee, or by the vendor, as the case may be. Thus the action of Senen was barred by laches already by the fact that he learned the sale between Virgilio and Angel on 1989
Motion For Leave To File Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant's Motion For Rehearing and Rehearing en Banc, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 6.56 Acres, No. 11-1159 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2019)
First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A. v. First State Insurance Company, Inc., Cameron and Colby Company, Incorporated, A/K/A Cameron and Colby Co., Inc., Johnson & Higgins of Georgia, Inc, 909 F.2d 1493, 1st Cir. (1990)