Case Digest (G.R. No. L-72873)
Facts:
Carlos Alonzo and Casimira Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Tecla Padua, G.R. No. 72873, May 28, 1987, the Supreme Court En Banc, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.Five siblings inherited undivided equal shares of a 604-square-meter lot registered under OCT No. 10977. In 1963 Celestino Padua sold his undivided share to Carlos and Casimira Alonzo for P550.00; in 1964 Eustaquia Padua sold her share to the same vendees by an instrument styled "Con Pacto de Retro Sale" for P440.00. After the purchases the Alonzos occupied and fenced off an area amounting to two-fifths of the lot. In 1975, with the petitioners’ consent, their son Eduardo and his wife constructed a semi-concrete house on part of the enclosed area.
In 1976, Mariano Padua, another co-heir, attempted redemption but his complaint was dismissed when it was shown he was an American citizen. On May 27, 1977, Tecla Padua, another co-heir, filed a complaint asserting her statutory right of redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code. The trial court (presided by Judge Cezar D. Francisco) dismissed Tecla’s complaint on the ground that the right of redemption had lapsed because the co-heirs had actual knowledge of the sales and thus the 30-day period prescribed by Article 1088 had run; the court treated actual knowledge as satisfying the notice requirement.
The Intermediate Appellate Court, however, reversed the trial court. The IAC, through Justice J. B. L. Reyes as ponente, held that Article 1088 requires a written notice and that actual notice would not suffice; it relied on prior decisions construing similar language in Article 1623 (notably De Conejero v. Court of Appeals and Butte v. Uy) and declared that written notice (or a copy of the deed of sale) from the vendor to the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does Article 1088 of the Civil Code require written notice as an indispensable condition to start the 30‑day period for co‑heirs to redeem, so that actual (oral or constructive) notice cannot suffice?
- If written notice is not strictly required in these circumstances, had Tecla Padua’s right of redemption already lapsed by th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)