Está en la página 1de 2

ALONZO vs IAC

DOCTRINE:
In this case, the co-heirs filed an action for redemption if their co-heirs share only
after 13 years had elapsed from the sale. The court held that they are deemed ti have
been actually informed thereof sometime during those years although no written notice
of sale was given to them

Facts:
5 brothers & sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso shares a parcel of lang
registered in the name of their deceased parents. Celestino transferred his undivided
share to petitioners by way of absolute sale. Eustaquia also sold her share to petitioners
in a pacto de retro sale.
Petitioners occupied a portion of the land and enclosed it with a fence and their
son and his wife built a semi-concrete home in the fenced area. Tecla, one of the
owners, sought to redeem the area sold to petitioners but it was dismissed on the
ground that the right had lapsed, not having been executed within 30 days from notice
of the sale.
Although there was no written notice, it was held that actual knowledge by the
co-heirs satisfied the requirement of the law. Also, it is highly-improbable that the other
co-heirs were unaware of the sales that they thought, as they alleged, that the area
occupied by the petitioners had merely been mortgaged by Celestino and Eustaquia. It
was impossible that the co-heirs did not know of the purchase because of the building
constructed by the spouses son in the land.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the petitioners were notified even if there was no written notice

Ruling:
As to the first issue, it was held that the parties were notified although there was
no written notice because according to Article 1623, it is required that written notice
should be given by the vendor and not the vendees. The court held that notice given by

the vendees does not toll the running of the 30-day period. HOWEVER, in the
established facts, we cannot accept the private respondents pretense that they were
unaware of the sales made by their brother or sister. To require written proof of notice
would defeat the purpose of the law which is to make sure that the redemptioners are
duly notified. The court was satisfied that although there was no written notice, the
parties were actually notified.