ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPEALLATE COURT & PADUA, GR No.

72873,
May 28, 1987 (En Banc), Cruz J.

Facts:

Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal shares a parcel of land registered in
the name of their deceased parents. In March 1963, one of them, Celestino Padua sold
his undivided share to petitioners Carlos and Casmira Alonzo. A year later, Eustaquia
Padua, his sister sold her own share to the same vendees. Thus petitioners, occupied
said land corresponding an area of 2/5 of said lot, enclosed it with a fence and built a
semi-concrete house.

One of the five co-heirs, sought to redeem the area in 1976 but complaint was
dismissed him being an American citizen. But another co-heir Tecla Padua, filed her
own complaint invoking the same right of redemption pursuant to Article 1088 of Civil
Code1.

RTC DISMISSED the complaint on the ground that (1) the right had lapsed not
having been exercised within 30 days from notice of sales in 1963 and 1964 pursuant to
Article 1623 of Civil Code2 and (2) though there was no written notice, actual knowledge
of the sales satisfied the requirement of law.

Respondent court, upon appeal REVERSED the RTC stating that notice required
under Article 1088 was a written notice, and an actual notice would not suffice as
substitute. Hence, this appeal.

Issue/s: Whether or not a lot sold in 1963, still open for co-heirs to exercise their right of
redemption, fourteen years after, due to the absence of a written notice at the time of
sale, pursuant to Article 1088 and 1623 of the Civil Code?

Ruling:

No. Though a strict construction of Article 1088 would lead one to conclude that
in view of the deficiency of a written notice, the 30 day period of redemption had not
begun, much less expired in 1977, we test a law by its results and by its purposes.

While we may admittedly not legislate, we nevertheless have the power to

interpret the law in such a way as to reflect the will of the legislature. While we may not
read into the law a purpose that is not there, we nevertheless have the right to read out
of it the reason for its enactment. In doing so, we defer not to “the letter that killeth,” but
to “the spirit that giveth life.”

The instant case presents no such problem because the right of redemption was
invoked not days but thirteen years after the same and fourteen years after the second
sale. Was there a valid notice? Granting that the law requires it to be written, would
such be necessary in this case?

We cannot accept the private respondents’ pretense that they were unaware of
the sales made by their brothers and sisters in 1963 and 1964. By requiring a written
proof of notice, we would be closing our eyes to the obvious truth in favour of a palpable
claim of ignorance. The acts of petitioner were acts of ownership yet none of the co-
heirs saw fit to object or at least inquire to ascertain the facts which were readily
available. It took all of thirteen years before one of them chose to claim the right of
redemption, but then it was already too late. We are satisfied that in this case the other
brothers and sisters were actually informed, although not in writing, of the sales in 1963
and 1964, and that such notice was sufficient.

Wherefore petition is GRANTED. Decision of respondent court is REVERSED

and that of RTC is REINSTATED.

Article 1088 Civil Code. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before 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.

Article 1623. Civil Code. 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 vendors, 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 the adjoining owners.