G.R. No.
L-26855 April 17, 1989
FRANCISCO GARCIA, PAZ GARCIA, and MARIA GARCIA, petitioners,
vs.
JOSE CALALIMAN, PACIENCIA TRABADILLO & HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Third
Division, respondents.
The main issue is whether or not petitioners took all the necessary steps to effectuate their exercise
of the right of legal redemption within the period fixed by Art. 1088 of the Civil Code.
It is undisputed that no notification in writing was ever received by petitioners about the sale of the
hereditary interest of some of their co-heirs in the parcel of land they inherited from the late Gelacio
Garcia, although in a letter dated June 23, 1953 petitioner Francisco Garcia wrote one of his co-
heirs, Joaquin Garcia, who is an uncle of petitioners, proposing to buy the hereditary interests of his
co-heirs in their unpartitioned inheritance. Although said petitioner asked that his letter be answered
"in order that I will know the results of what I have requested you," (Exhibit, p. 14) there is no proof
that he was favored with one.
Petitioners came to know that their co-heirs were selling the property on December 3, 1954 when
one of the heirs, Juanito Bertomo, asked Petitioner Paz Garcia to sign a document prepared in the
Municipality of Tubungan because the land they inherited was going to be sold to private
respondent, Jose Calaliman (TSN, September 6, 1957, p. 60). The document mentioned by
petitioner Paz Garcia could be no other than the one entitled "Extra-Judicial Partition and Deed of
Sale" dated December 3, 1954 as it is in this document that the name of Paz Garcia, Maria Garcia
and Amado Garcia appear unsigned by them (Exhibits, p. 19).
It is not known whether the other heirs whose names appear in the document had already signed the
document at the time Paz Garcia was approached by Juanito Bertomo. Paz Garcia, however,
testified that she immediately informed her brother Francisco that Juanita Bertomo wanted to sell the
land to Jose Calaliman (TSN, September 6,1957, p. 62). On December 26, 1954 he wrote
respondents giving them notice of his desire to exercise the right of legal redemption and that he will
resort to court action if denied the right (Exhibits, p. 8). The respondents received the letter on
January 13, 1955 but petitioner Francisco Garcia did not get any answer from them. Neither did
respondents show him a copy of the document of sale nor inform him about the price they paid for
the sale when he went home to Tubungan from Manila sometime in March 1955 and went to see the
respondent spouse about the matter on March 24,1955 (TSN, September 6,1957, p. 18).
Because of the refusal of respondent Jose Calaliman to show him the document of sale or reveal to
him the price paid for the parcel of land, petitioner Francisco Garcia went to the Office of the
Register of Deeds on the same date, March 24,1955 and there found two documents of sale
regarding the same parcel of land (TSN, Ibid, p. 19).
Petitioners filed the case for legal redemption with the trial court on May 7, 1955. Respondents claim
that the 30-day period prescribed in Article 1088 of the New Civil Code for petitioners to exercise the
right to legal redemption had already elapsed at that time and that the requirement of Article 1088 of
the New Civil Code that notice would be in writing is deemed satisfied because written notice would
be superfluous, the purpose of the law having been fully served when petitioner Francisco Garcia
went to the Office of the Register of Deeds and saw for himself, read and understood the contents of
the deeds of sale (Brief for respondents, p. 6).
The issue has been squarely settled in the case of Castillo v. Samonte, where this Court observed:
Both the letter and spirit of the new Civil Code argue against any attempt to widen
the scope of the notice specified in Article 1088 by including therein any other kind of
notice, such as verbal or by registration. If the intention of the law had been to
include verbal notice or any other means of information as sufficient to give the effect
of this notice, then there would have been no necessity or reasons to specify in
Article 1088 of the New Civil Code that the said notice be made in writing for, under
the old law, a verbal notice or information was sufficient (106 Phil. 1023 [1960]).
In the above-quoted decision the Court did not consider the registration of the deed of sale with the
Register of Deeds sufficient notice, most specially because the property involved was unregistered
land, as in the instant case. The Court took note of the fact that the registration of the deed of sale
as sufficient notice of a sale under the provision of Section 51 of Act No. 496 applies only to
registered lands and has no application whatsoever to a case where the property involved is,
admittedly, unregistered land.
Consistent with aforesaid ruling, in the interpretation of a related provision (Article 1623 of the New
Civil Code) this Court had stressed that written notice is indispensable, actual knowledge of the sale
acquired in some other manners by the redemptioner, notwithstanding. He or she is still entitled to
written notice, as exacted by the Code, to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and its
validity, and to quiet any doubt that the alienation is not definitive. The law not having provided for
any alternative, the method of notifications remains exclusive, though the Code does not prescribe
any particular form of written notice nor any distinctive method for written notification of redemption
(Conejero et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., 16 SCRA 775 [1966]; Etcuban v. Court of Appeals, 148
SCRA 507 [1987]; Cabrera v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 75069, April 15,1988).
Petitioners fault the appellate court in not awarding them damages, attorney's fees and costs. After
finding in favor of respondent spouses and against petitioners herein it is untenable for petitioners to
expect that the appellate court would award damages and attorney's fees and costs. However as
already discussed, petitioners have not lost their right to redeem, for in the absence of a written
notification of the sale by the vendors, the 30-day period has not even begun to run. Petitioners
clearly can claim attorney's fees for bad faith on the part of respondents, first, for refusing
redemption, and secondly for declaring the entire land as theirs, although they knew some heirs had
not sold their shares.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the decision of
the trial court is REINSTATED with the modification that petitioners be awarded damages, attorney's
fees and costs in the amount prayed for.
SO ORDERED.
