Scribd
Upload
184 views2 pages

Legal Redemption in Co-Ownership Dispute

This case discusses the legal requirements for notice of pre-emption or redemption rights under Article 1623 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the notice must be given by the co-owner vendor, not the vendee, (2) a letter sent by the vendee Boiser to Padalia was insufficient notice as it did not come from the vendor, and (3) despite this, the summons Padalia received in 1992 providing actual knowledge of the sale was sufficient to trigger the 30-day period for redemption rights due to the significant delay. The petition was granted and the decision reversed.

Uploaded by

Evander Arcenal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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
184 views2 pages

Legal Redemption in Co-Ownership Dispute

This case discusses the legal requirements for notice of pre-emption or redemption rights under Article 1623 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the notice must be given by the co-owner vendor, not the vendee, (2) a letter sent by the vendee Boiser to Padalia was insufficient notice as it did not come from the vendor, and (3) despite this, the summons Padalia received in 1992 providing actual knowledge of the sale was sufficient to trigger the 30-day period for redemption rights due to the significant delay. The petition was granted and the decision reversed.

Uploaded by

Evander Arcenal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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

ADALIA B. FRANCISCO vs. ZENAIDA F.

BOISER
GR No. 137677; May 31, 2000

DOCTRINE

The notice required for the exercise of legal pre-emption or redemption contemplated under Art.
1623 must be given by the co-owner-vendor, not the vendee.

FACTS

 Padalia B. Francisco and three of her sisters were co-owners of four parcels of land. They
sold 1/5 of undivided share to Adela Bias. The latter then sold the same 1/5 share to
Zenaida Boiser without the knowledge and consent of his four co-owners. Boiser then
demanded from Padalia, her share in the rentals collected from the tenants of the building
in the co-owned property via court action; Padalia received summons therefor on August
5, 1992. After which, Padalia sought to exercise her right to redeem Boiser’s 1/5 share,
consigning P10k with the Clerk of Court. Boiser refused.

 Thus, Padalia filed a complaint for legal redemption with the RTC.

 In her defense, Boiser said that the 30-day period granted to Padalia had already expired
as she sent Padalia a notice of sale (Bias to Boiser) on May 30, 1992; enclosed on said
letter was a copy of the Deed of Sale. Padalia claimed otherwise, saying said that period
did not start to run until her receipt of the summons on August 5, 1992.

 The RTC dismissed the complaint. The CA affirmed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the letter of May 30, 1992 sent by Boiser to Padalia notifying the latter of the sale
on August 8, 1986 of Adela Bias’ 1/5 share of the property to Boiser, containing a copy of the
deed evidencing such sale, be considered sufficient as compliance with the notice requirement of
Art. 1623 for the purpose of legal redemption

RULING

No. The notice contemplated by art. 1623 must be given by the co-owner-vendor, not the vendee;
the notice should have been received from bias. Boiser’s letter is thus insufficient.
Art. 1623 of the Civil Code is clear in requiring that the written notification should come from
the vendor or prospective vendor, not from any other person; there is not room for interpretation.
Moreover, effect must be given to the change in statutory language, i.e. the old law did not
specify who must give the notice, the New Civil Code does. The reason for this is that: a) the co-
owner-vendor is in the best position to know who his co-owners are, that under the law must be
notified of the sale, b) said notice also removes all doubts as to fact of the sale, its perfection, and
its validity – an assurance that the fact of the sale will no longer be questioned.

However, given the delay (the sale was made in 1986 and the Padalia was notified only in 1992),
the Court ruled that the summons received by Padalia is sufficient notice, and constitutes actual
knowledge of the sale. The SC noted that she had already consigned the amount with the Court,
thus the redemption must be given effect.

Petition was granted. Decision reversed.

You might also like