ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT Hence, this petition.
May 28, 1987 | Cruz, J. | Ratio Legis; Spirit of the Law
ISSUE/s:
PETITIONERS: Carlos Alonzo and Casimira Alonzo Whether or not the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in dismissing the peritioner’s
RESPONDENTS: Intermediate Appellate Court and Tecla Padua complaint upon the interpretation that the Article 1088 of the Civil Code requires
notice of sales to be in writing – YES
SUMMARY: 2 out of 5 siblings respectively sold a share of their inherited land
to the petitioners. The sales were a year apart. 14 years later, 2 co-heirs filed a RULING: Petition is GRANTED. Decision of the respondent court REVERSED.
complaint seeking to redeem the sold area. The trial court dismissed the
complaint because private respondent did not exercise her right to redeem the RATIO:
property within the 30-day period from notice of sales in accordance with Art. In seeking the meaning of law, the first concern of the judge should be to discover in
1088 of the Civil Code. Repondent court (Intermediate Appellate Court) its provisions the intent of the lawmaker. The court has the power to interpret the
reversed the trial court decision on the ground that the statute specifies that a law in a way to reflect the will of the legislature. The law should never be
written notice must be given before the 30-day redemption period commences. interpreted in a way that causes injustice. The presumption is that the legislature’s
SC looks into the intent of the law in disposing of this petition. good motive is to render justice. Thus, the law is interpreted and applied in
consonance with justice. It is key to find a balance between the word and the will,
DOCTRINE: so justice may be served even as the law is obeyed.
A statute must be read according to its spirit or intent. For what is within the
spirit is within the statute although it is not within the letter therof, and that Intent of the statute concerned
which is within the letter but not within the spirit is not within the statute. Article 1088 of the Civil Code, in requiring written notice seeks to ensure that the
Courts have the power to interpret the law in a way to reflect the will of the redemptioner is properly notified of the sale and to indicate that the date of such
legislature. notice is the start of the 30-day redemption period. Because of the short period,
identifying the exact date is crucial. However, in the case at bar, there is no longer a
need for such, because the right of redemption was invoked 13 years after the 1 st sale
FACTS: and 14 years after the 2nd sale.
1. 5 brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso (common or undivided
ownership) shares a parcel land. In 1963, 1 of them, Celestino Padua, Respondents had a palpably false claim of ignorance, which the court cannot
transferred his undivided share of the herein petitioners for the sum of P550 disregard. The clear purpose of the statute is to make sure that redemptioners
by way of absolute sale. A year later, his sister, Eustaquia Padue, sold her are duly notified, and the court finds that the co-heirs were actually informed of
own share to the petitioners for P440. The petitioners then occupied an area the sales. Although not in writing, such notice was sufficient. Hence, the 30-day
corresponding 2/5 of the said lot. With their consent, their son and his wife period has long expired.
built a house within the enclosed area.
2. Mariano Padua, 1 of the 5 co-heirs, sought to redeem the area sold to the The court is not abandoning doctrines requiring written notice in the past (De
petitioners, but complaint was dismissed when it appeared he was an Conjero and Buttle). This case is an exception to the general rule in view of the
American citizen. peculiar circumstances (co-heirs were undeniably informed even if no notice in
3. Tecla Padua, another co-heir filed her own complaint. Trial court also writing was given).
dismissed this complaint on the ground that the right had lapsed when
she did not exercise within 30 days from notice of sales in 1963 and
1964 as per Article 1088 of the Civil Code. According to the ruling, even
without written notice, the actual knowledge of the sales by their co-heirs
satisfied this requirement. The other co-heirs lived on the same lot as the
petitioners, so it is highly improbable that they are unaware of the sales as
they alleged.
4. Respondent court reversed the trial court decision and declared that the
notice required was written notice. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, ponente of the
court, said that the redemptioner must be informed in writing of the sale.
