Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Respondent argues that a written notice is required from the vendors and not the
vendees.
Art. 1623 provides:
Art. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised
except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or
by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the
Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he
has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners. (1524a)
Although there was no written notice, actual notice was accepted because of the
following circumstances:
o Tecla Padua lived in the same lot with the co-heirs
o Eustaquia Padua was staying in the same house as Tecla
o The petitioners and respondents were friends and their children went to
the same school.
Given the circumstances, it was impossible for Tecla to not know of the sale
when the erection of the semi-concrete structure was done without any objection.
The law should be interpreted according to the legislative intent and good
motives are always presumed.
Art. 1088 seeks to ensure proper notification of sale and the date of notice starts
the 30 day period.
The right of redemption was invoked only in 1977, which is 13 and 14 years from
the sale in 1963 and 1964.
Requiring written proof would ignore the obvious false claim of ignorance.
The court is satisfied that the other co-heirs were actually informed of the sales.
The 30 day period lapsed between the sales done in 1963 and 1964 and the date
of filing the complaint on 1976.