Case Summary (G.R. No. L-72873)
Petitioner
Carlos and Casimira Alonzo purchased the shares from Celestino and Eustaquia Padua in 1963 and 1964, respectively, fenced the two-fifths area and in 1975 allowed their son to build a semi-concrete house thereon.
Respondent
Tecla Padua, a non-American co-heir, filed a redemption suit in 1977 claiming the right to repurchase her siblings’ sold shares, asserting that without written notice the statutory period never began.
Key Dates
• March 15, 1963 – Sale of Celestino’s one-fifth share for ₱550.
• April 22, 1964 – Sale of Eustaquia’s one-fifth share for ₱440 (pacto de retro).
• February 25, 1976 – Redemption suit by another co-heir dismissed for lack of citizenship.
• May 27, 1977 – Tecla Padua’s redemption complaint filed and dismissed by trial court for lapse of 30-day period.
• May 28, 1987 – Supreme Court decision on the appeal.
Applicable Law
Civil Code of the Philippines (1950), Article 1088: co-heirs may subrogate to a purchaser’s rights by reimbursing the price within one month of written notice by the vendor. Constitution in force: 1973 Constitution.
Issue
Does Article 1088’s written notice requirement bar the running of the 30-day redemption period when all co-heirs had actual, unambiguous knowledge of the sales and delayed for over a decade before asserting redemption?
Ruling
Yes. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of demonstrable prejudice, actual notice sufficed. The redemption period ran and expired well before 1977; Tecla Padua’s complaint was properly dismissed.
Rationale
- Purpose of Written Notice: To ensure co-heirs are informed and to mark the commencement of the redemption window. After 13 years of inaction, pinpointing a precise start date is unnecessary.
- Actual Knowledge and Laches: Co-heirs co-resided on the compact 604 sqm lot, observed fencing and construction, and failed to inquire—actions charging them with laches equivalent to knowledge.
- Principle of Justice over Formalism: Strict adherence to the literal notice requirement would exalt form over substance and thwart legislative intent. Courts must interpret statutes in light of their purpose and to prevent in
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-72873)
Facts of the Case
- Five siblings inherited equal undivided shares of a 604-square-meter lot registered under OCT No. 10977 in Tarlac.
- On March 15, 1963, Celestino Padua sold his one-fifth share to Carlos and Casimira Alonzo for ₱550.00 by absolute sale.
- On April 22, 1964, Eustaquia Padua, another sibling, sold her share to the Alonzos for ₱440.00 under a “pacto de retro sale.”
- The Alonzos fenced the two-fifths portion acquired and, in 1975, with the vendees’ consent, their son built a semi-concrete house thereon.
- In February 1976, Mariano Padua filed a redemption suit but was dismissed for lack of capacity (American citizenship).
- In May 1977, Tecla Padua filed a redemption suit claiming the same right under Article 1088 of the Civil Code.
Procedural History
- Trial Court dismissed Tecla Padua’s complaint: right of redemption lapsed for non-exercise within thirty days; held that actual knowledge of the sales sufficed for notice.
- Intermediate Appellate Court reversed: held that Article 1088 requires written notice by the vendor; actual knowledge alone does not start the thirty-day period.
Issue
- Whether Article 1088’s requirement of “notice in writing” may be satisfied by actual (oral or implied) knowledge rather than a written notice formally given by the vendor.
Applicable Law
- Article 1088, Civil Code: co-heirs may subrogate purchaser’s rights by reimbursing purchase price within one month from writ