You are on page 1of 2


Duty to Render Judgment

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.
Whether or not Tecla Padua can invoke her right of redemption
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
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-heirs
o Eustaquia Padua was staying in the same house as Tecla
o 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.