G. R. No.

72873
May 28, 1987
Alonzo v Padua
Facts:
Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso shares of a
parcel of land registered in the name of their deceased parents. On
March 15, 1963, Celestino Padua transferred his undivided shared for
the sum of P550.00 by way of absolute sale. The following year,
Eustaquia Padua sold her share in an instrument denominated Con
Pacto de Retro Sale for the sum of P440.00. By virtue of these
agreements, the petitioners occupied. After the said sales, the
corresponding 2/5 of the said loth was enclosed by a fence. In 1975,
with the consent of the petitioners, their son Eduardo and his wife built
a semi- concrete house on a part of the enclosed area. Mariano Padua,
one of the co-heirs tried to redeem the area sold but was dismissed
when it appeared that he was a American citizen. Tecla Padua, another
co-heir, filed her own complaint invoking the same right of redemption
claimed by her brother. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the
grounds that the right had lapsed, not having exercised within 30 days
from the notice of the sales. Although there was no written notice, it
was held that there was actual knowledge of the sales by the co-heirs.
The respondent court reversed the decision of the Trial Court because
the notice required by Article 1088 of the New Civil Code was written
notice and that actual notice would not suffice as substitute.
Issue:
Whether or not actual knowledge would suffice as substitute as a
requirement of Art. 1088 of the New Civil Code.
Held:
The co-heirs of this case were undeniably informed of the sales
although no notice in writing was given to them. And there is no doubt
either that the 30-day period began and ended during the 14 years
between sales in question and the filing of the complaint for
redemption in 1977, without the co-heirs exercising their right of
redemption. These are the justifications of tis exception.
Petition is granted.