Scribd
Upload
312 views1 page

Alonzo Vs IAC

- Five siblings inherited land from their deceased parents. One sibling sold their undivided share to the petitioners. Another sibling later sold their share to the petitioners via a "Con Pacto de Retro Sale". - One sibling tried to redeem the land sold to the petitioners but their case was dismissed. Another sibling then filed their own complaint to redeem the land. - The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the right to redeem had lapsed after 30 days from notice of sale. The appellate court reversed, finding no written notice was given. - The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court decision, finding that actual knowledge of the sales satisfied the notice requirement in Article 1088 of the

Uploaded by

Johney Doe
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
312 views1 page

Alonzo Vs IAC

- Five siblings inherited land from their deceased parents. One sibling sold their undivided share to the petitioners. Another sibling later sold their share to the petitioners via a "Con Pacto de Retro Sale". - One sibling tried to redeem the land sold to the petitioners but their case was dismissed. Another sibling then filed their own complaint to redeem the land. - The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the right to redeem had lapsed after 30 days from notice of sale. The appellate court reversed, finding no written notice was given. - The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court decision, finding that actual knowledge of the sales satisfied the notice requirement in Article 1088 of the

Uploaded by

Johney Doe
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Alonzo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and Padua (G.R. No. L-72873.

May 28, 1987)


16APR
CARLOS ALONZO and CASIMIRA ALONZO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and TECLA PADUA, respondents. Perpetuo L.B. Alonzo for petitioners. Luis R. Reyes for private respondent. Ponente: CRUZ FACTS: Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso shares a parcel of land registered in the name of their deceased parents. One of them transferred his undivided share by way of absolute sale. A year later, his sister sold her share in a Con Pacto de Retro Sale. By virtue of such agreements, the petitioners occupied, after the said sales, an area corresponding to two-fifths of the said lot, representing the portions sold to them. The vendees subsequently enclosed the same with a fence. with their consent, their son Eduardo Alonzo and his wife built a semi-concrete house on a part of the enclosed area. One of the five coheirs sought to redeem the area sold to petitioners but was dismissed when it appeared that he was an American citizen. Another coheir filed her own complaint invoking the same right of redemption of her brother. Trial court dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the right had lapsed, not having been exercised within thirty days from notice of the sales. Although there was no written notice, it was held that actual knowledge of the sales by the co-heirs satisfied the requirement of the law. Respondent court reversed the decision of the Trial Court. ISSUE: Whether or not actual knowledge satisfied the requirement of Art. 1088 of the New Civil Code. HELD: YES. Decision of respondent court was reversed and that of trial court reinstated. RATIO: The co-heirs in this case were undeniably informed of the sales although no notice in writing was given them. And there is no doubt either that the 30-day period began and ended during the 14 years between the 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 for this exception. While [courts] may not read into the law a purpose that is not there, [courts] nevertheless have the right to read out of it the reason for its enactment. In doing so, [courts] defer not to the letter that killeth but to the spirit that vivifieth, to give effect to the law makers will.

You might also like