7.

The RTC dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the time has lapsed,
Alonzo vs IAC
June 20, 2001 | Buena, J.| Yu, Ryan Louie Chan
PETITIONER: Carlos Alonzo, Casimira Alonzo
RESPONDENTS: Intermediate Appellate Court, Tecla Padua
SUMMARY: Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso
shares a parcel of land named after their deceased parents. One of them,
Celestino Padua, transferred his undivided share to herein petitioners by
way of absolute sale. One year later, Eustaquia Pada, his sister, sold her
share to the same vendees. The petitioners then occupied after the sales
two fifths of the said lot. Mariano Padua, another co-heir sought to
redeem the lots sold to the petitioners, but his complaint was denied when
it was found out that he was an American citizen. Tecla Padua, another
co-heir, filed the same right of redemption claim, hence this case.
DOCTRINE: Article 1088 of the Civil Code - Should 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, provided they do so within the period of one
month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the
vendor."
not having exercised within 30 days from the sales of 1963 and 1964.
8. The IAC stressed the need for a written notice, and that actual notice would
not substitute.
9. There was no written notice given by the vendees and as such the 30 day
running period has not yet begun.
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN a written notice is required in relation to Art. 1088 of the Civil Code?
2. WoN the 30-day redemption period has begun?
RATIO:
1. Yes, as it is mentioned in Art.1088 pf the Civil Code.
2. Yes, sometime between those years and 1976, when the first complaint for
redemption was filed, the other co-heirs were actually informed of the sale
and that thereafter the 30-day period started running and ultimately expired.
This could have happened any time during the interval of thirteen years,
when none of the co-heirs made a move to redeem the properties sold. By
1977, in other words, when Tecla Padua filed her complaint, the right of
redemption had already been extinguished because the period for its
exercise had already expired.
Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The decision of the respondent court is
REVERSED and that of the trial court is reinstated, without any pronouncement as
to costs. It is so ordered.

FACTS:
1. On March 15, 1963, Celestino Padua sold to herein petitioners his share of
one-fifth of a parcel of land in Tarlac by way of absolute sale.
2. The following year, Eustaquia Pada, another co-heir also sold her share in the
same way to the petitioners.
3. In 1975 the son of the Alonzo spouses, Eduardo built a fence and a house
corresponding to two-fifths of the lot that which they bought.
4. In 1976 Mariano Padua, one of the co-heirs, sought to redeem the area sold
to the Alonzo spouses, but his petition was denied due to him being an
American Citizen.
5. In 1977 Tecla Padua, another co-heir sought to do the same thing that his
brother Mariano Padua did.
6. The court ruled that it would be impossible for the co-heirs to be ignorant of
the fact that Eduardo Alonzo built a house and a fence in the lot that his
parents bought, when the co-heirs and the Alonzo spouses lived within a mere
area of 604 sq. meters.