H. Duty to Render Judgment

ALONZO V. PADUA

Facts: 5 brothers and sisters inherited a parcel of land from their deceased parents

under OCT NO. 10977 of the Registry of Deeds of Tarlac. On March 15, 1993, Celestino Padua, one of the brothers, transferred his share

to the petitioners by absolute sale for PHP 500. On April 22, 1964, Eustaquia Padua, also one of the co-heirs, sold her share to

the same vendess by Con Pacto Recto Sale for PHP 440. The petitioners occupied the 2/5 of the parcel of land, which was the portion sold

to them and enclosed it with a fence. In 1975, Eduardo Alonzo, the son of the petitioners, together with his wife built a

semi-concrete house in the enclosed area with the consent of his parents. On May 27, 1977, Tecla Padua, one of the co-heirs, filed a complain and invoked

her right of redemption for the sold portions of land.Issue:

Whether or not Tecla Padua can invoke her right of redemptionRuling:

No, that right had already lapsed not having been exercised within 30 days from the notice of sales in 1963 and 1964.

Art. 1088 of the Civil Code provides:Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor.

Respondent argues that a written notice is required from the vendors and not the vendees.

Art. 1623 provides:Art. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners. (1524a) 

Although there was no written notice, actual notice was accepted because of the following circumstances:

o Tecla Padua lived in the same lot with the co-heirso Eustaquia Padua was staying in the same house as Teclao The petitioners and respondents were friends and their children went to

the same school. Given the circumstances, it was impossible for Tecla to not know of the sale

when the erection of the semi-concrete structure was done without any objection. The law should be interpreted according to the legislative intent and good

motives are always presumed. Art. 1088 seeks to ensure proper notification of sale and the date of notice starts

the 30 day period. The right of redemption was invoked only in 1977, which is 13 and 14 years from

the sale in 1963 and 1964. Requiring written proof would ignore the obvious false claim of ignorance.

The court is satisfied that the other co-heirs were actually informed of the sales. The 30 day period lapsed between the sales done in 1963 and 1964 and the date

of filing the complaint on 1976.