Alonzo v. Padua Digest

H. Duty to Render Judgment ALONZO V. PADUA Facts: •

•

•

•

•

•

5 brothers and sisters inherited a parcel of land from their deceased parents under OCT NO. 10977 of the Registry of eeds of Tarlac. On !arch 15" 199#" Celestino $adua" one of the brothers" transferred his share to the petitioners by absolute sale for $%$ 500. On &pril ''" 19()" *usta+uia $adua" also one of the co,heirs" sold her share to the same -endess by Con Pacto Recto Sale for $%$ ))0. The petitioners occupied the '5 of the parcel of land" /hich /as the portion sold to them and enclosed it /ith a fence. n 1975" *duardo &lono" the son of the petitioners" together /ith his /ife built a semi,concrete house in the enclosed area /ith the consent of his parents. On !ay '7" 1977" Tecla $adua" one of the co,heirs" filed a complain and in-o2ed her right of redemption for the sold portions of land.

Issue: 3hether or not Tecla $adua can in-o2e her right of redemption Rulng: No" that right had already lapsed not ha-ing been e4ercised /ithin #0 days from the notice of sales in 19(# and 19().  &rt. 10 10 of the Ci-il Ci-il Code pro-ides6 pro-ides6  &rt. 10. hould any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the 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" pro-ided they do so /ithin the period of one month from the time they /ere notified in /riting of the sale by the -endor.

Respondent argues that a /ritten notice is re+uired from the -endors and not the -endees.  &rt. 1('# 1('# pro-ides6 pro-ides6  &rt. 1('#. The right of legal pre,emption or redemption shall not be e4ercised e4cept /ithin thirty days from the notice in /riting by the prospecti-e -endor" or  by the -endor" as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of $roperty" unless accompanied by an affida-it of the -endor that he has gi-en /ritten notice thereof to all possible redemptioners. The right of redemption of co,o/ners e4cludes that of ad8oining o/ners. 15')a:

 <hough there /as no /ritten notice" actual actual notice notice /as accepted accepted because because of the follo/ing circumstances6 Tecla $adua li-ed in the same lot /ith the co,heirs o *usta+uia $adua /as staying in the same house as Tecla o The petitioners and respondents /ere friends and their children /ent to o the same school. ;i-en the circumstances" it /as impossible for Tecla to not 2no/ of the sale /hen the erection of the semi,concrete structure /as done /ithout any ob8ection. The la/ should be interpreted according to the legislati-e intent and good moti-es are al/ays presumed.  &rt. 10 10 see2s to ensure proper proper notification notification of of sale and the date of notice starts the #0 day period.

•

The right of redemption /as in-o2ed only in 1977" /hich is 1# and 1) years from the sale in 19(# and 19(). Re+uiring /ritten proof /ould ignore the ob-ious false claim of ignorance. The court is satisfied that the other co,heirs /ere actually informed of the sales. The #0 day period lapsed bet/een the sales done in 19(# and 19() and the date of filing the complaint on 197(.