You are on page 1of 1

122 Francisco v.

Sales Art. 1623 2000 Mendoza, J.

Adalia Francisco and her sisters sold 1/5 of their undivided share to their mother. Their mother sold it to Zenaida
Boiser, another sister of Adalia. Boiser then sent a letter to Francisco informing her of the sale and asking for her portion
of the rentals from the tenants of the building. Francisco refused and informed Boiser that she was exercising her right
of redemption. Francisco alleges that she can still redeem because the 30-day period in Art 1623 has not yet run because
her mother, the vendor, did not inform her about the sale. Boiser is claiming that her letter is sufficient notice to
Francisco. The SC ruled that Francisco can still redeem because the notice must come from the vendor and not the


Adalia Francisco and three of her sisters were co-owners of four parcels of registered lands on which the Ten
Commandments Building at Caloocan City was erected. On August 6, 1979, they sold 1/5 of their undivided share in the
subject parcels of land to their mother, Adela Blas, for P10,000.00.

Their mother sold her share to Zenaida Boiser who is another sister of Francisco, without the knowledge of the co-

On August 5, 1992 Boiser filed a civil case demanding her share in the rentals being collected by Francisco from the
tenants of the building. Francisco then informed Boiser that she was exercising her right of redemption as a co-owner
of the subject property. On August 12, 1992, she deposited the amount of P10,000.00 as redemption price.

Contention of Adalia Francisco - She alleged that the 30-day period for redemption under Art. 1623 of the Civil Code
had not begun to run against her since the vendor, their mother Adela Blas, never informed her and the other owners
about the sale to Boiser.

Contention of Zenaida Boiser - Francisco knew about the sale as early as May 30, 1992, when Boiser sent a letter
informing Francisco about the sale and demanding the rentals. The deed of sale was attached to said letter.

RTC ruled in favor of Zenaida Boiser and the CA affirmed the decision.


Whether the letter dated May 30, 1992 sent by Boiser to Francisco notifying her of the sale can be
considered sufficient as compliance with the notice requirement of Art. 1623 for the purpose of legal

NO. The Court ruled that Art. 1623 of the Civil Code is clear in requiring that the written notification should come
from the vendor or prospective vendor, not from any other person.

In the case at bar, the written notice came from the buyer or vendee and not from the vendor of the property
subject of legal redemption. The Court also ruled that the receipt by Francisco of summons in Civil Case No. 15510
on August 5, 1992 amounted to actual knowledge of the sale from which the 30-day period of redemption
commenced to run. Francisco then had until September 4, 1992 within which to exercise her right of legal
redemption, but in August 12, 1992 she deposited the P10,000.00 redemption price. As Francisco's exercise of said
right was timely, the same should be given effect.


WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED
and the Regional Trial Court, Branch 122, Caloocan City is ordered to effect Francisco's exercise of her right of legal
redemption in Civil Case No. C- 17055