DISTRITO VS CA

G.R. No. 95256

May 28, 1991

Facts:
Private respondents Pedro and Pacit Maquibas, and Enrique Samson seek to redeem
a co owners from the petitioners a parcel of land in Dumaguete City.

The property in question was originally owned by the deceased Simeona Amistad,
all her heirs had the last name of Villamil one of them being Librada Villmil. Librada
constructed a house on the property where her husband and children lived Pacita and
Pedro Maquibas also lived there. Pacita testified that she bought the share of Librada
Villamil and agreed with the heirs of Gabina Villamil to buy their respective shares. She also
wished to redeem the shares of the other heirs to preserve the lot for sentimental
purposes.

Respondents claim that they only knew of the construction of a house on the
property when Eduardo Distrito told them about it. They were offered to redeem the land
for the amount of 4,566 pesos but Maquibas refused.

Petitioners on the other hand claim that the whole portion of the lot was subject to a
civil case in the CFI of Negros Oriental and acquired the purchase of the half of the property
from Atty. Flores which he acquired as atty’s fees for the said case. They then bought the
shares of the other heirs which was duly notarized, Pedro Maquibas acted as the middle
man and accompanied Eduardo Distrito to notarize the sale.

Pedro Maquibas offered to sell his share of the property to Pacita but hesitated.

ISSUE:
WON the respondents are entitled to redeem the land.

RULING:

Yes, for Pacita Maquibas

No, for Pedro Maquibas

When a vendor sells real property, he must notify in writing his co- owners who
may redeem the same within thirty (30) days from notice. The deed of sale must be
accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all
possible redemptioners before it may be recorded in the Registry of Property. (Art 1623,
CC)
The Court ruled that the furnishing of a copy of the disputed deed of sale to the
redemptioner was equivalent to the giving of written notice required by law. The court
cited the case of Alonzo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, that as an exception to the general
rule the co-heirs who lived with the purchasers in the same lot are deemed to have
received actual notice of the sale.
Pedro Miquiabas acted as middleman and was present when the vendor signed the
deed of sale. It is obvious that he had actual knowledge of the sale. Thus, a written notice to
him as required by Article No. 1623 of the Civil Code is not necessary. The only purpose of
such written notice is to insure that all the co-owners shall be actually notified of the sale
and to remove all doubt as to the perfection of the sale.
 Because Pacita Miquiabas she was not present when the sale of the property was
undertaken there is no evidence that she was informed or that she ever learned about the
sale, and because she filed a complaint for redemption within 30 days from the notification
of the sale, she has the right to redeem the property.