Case Digest (G.R. No. L-72873) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Carlos Alonzo and Casimira Alonzo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and Tecla Padua (G.R. No. 72873, May 28, 1987), five siblings inherited in equal undivided shares a 604 sqm parcel in Tarlac, registered under OCT No. 10977. On March 15, 1963, co-heir Celestino Padua conveyed his one-fifth share to petitioners by absolute sale for ₱550.00. On April 22, 1964, sister Eustaquia Padua transferred her share under a Con pacto de retro sale for ₱440.00. Petitioners fenced and occupied two-fifths of the lot, and in 1975 their son erected a semi-concrete house thereon with co-heirs’ consent. On February 25, 1976, co-heir Mariano Padua attempted to redeem but was dismissed for being an American citizen. On May 27, 1977, co-heir Tecla Padua filed a complaint for redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code, alleging lack of the mandatory written notice. The trial court dismissed her suit, ruling that her actual knowledge of the 1963–1964 sales satisfied the notice requirement but tha Case Digest (G.R. No. L-72873) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Inheritance and Conveyances
- Five siblings inherited pro indiviso a 604 sqm parcel of land registered under OCT No. 10977 in Tarlac.
- On March 15, 1963, Celestino Padua sold his one-fifth share to petitioners Carlos and Casimira Alonzo for ₱550.
- On April 22, 1964, Eustaquia Padua sold her one-fifth share by “con pacto de retro sale” to the same vendees for ₱440.
- After these sales, petitioners fenced the two-fifths and, with their consent, built a semi-concrete house thereon in 1975.
- Redemption Proceedings
- February 25, 1976: Mariano Padua attempted redemption; trial court dismissed his complaint for lack of capacity (American citizenship).
- May 27, 1977: Tecla Padua filed a redemption complaint; trial court dismissed it as time-barred (no written notice, but deemed actual notice sufficient).
- Intermediate Appellate Court reversed, holding that Article 1088 requires written notice by the vendor, citing De Conejero v. CA (Article 1623) and Butte v. Uy.
Issues:
- Notice Requirement under Article 1088
- Does the right of redemption demand written notice, or can actual notice suffice?
- Must notice be given by the vendor exclusively, or may the vendee give it?
- Redemption Period
- When does the 30-day period for redemption commence?
- Was Tecla Padua’s May 1977 action filed within the allowable period?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)