G.R. No. 137677 – Adalia B. Francisco, petitioner, vs. Zenaida F. Boiser, respondent.
MENDOZA, J.
Rule Synopsis
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
Was 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 and Discussion
HELD – 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.
Dispositive
Petition granted. Decision reversed.