FRANCISCO v BOISER

FACTS:
Petitioner Adalia Francisco and three of her sisters, Ester, Elizabeth, an
d Adeluisa, were co-owners of four parcels of registered land in Caloocan City
On August 1979, they sold 1/5 of their undivided share to their mother, Adela Bl
as, for PhP10,000, making her a co-owner of the real property to that extent
7 years later, in 1986, however, Adela sold her 1/5 share for PhP10,000
to respondent Zenaida Boiser, another sister of petitioner
In 1992 or 6 years after the sale, Adalia received summons with a
copy of a complaint by Zenaida demanding her share in the rentals being
collected from the tenants of the Ten Commandments Building, which stands on
the co-owned property
Adalia then informs Zenaida that she was exercising
her right of redemption as co-owner of the subject property, depositing for t
hat purpose PhP10,000 with the Clerk of Court
The case was however dismissed after Zenaida was declared non-suited, and
Adalia s counterclaim was thus dismissed as well
3 years after, Adalia institutes a complaint demanding
the redemption of the property, contending that the 30- day period for redemp
tion under Art. 1623 had not begun to run against her or any of the other
co-owners, since the vendor Adela did not inform them about the sale, which fa
ct they only came to know of when Adalia received the summons in 1992
Zenaida on the other hand contends that Adalia already knew of the sal
e even before she received the summons since Zenaida had informed Adalia by let
ter of the sale with a demand for her share of the rentals three month
s before filing suit, attaching to it a copy of the deed of sale
Adalia s receipt of the said letter is proven by the fact
that within a week, she advised the tenants of the building to disregar
d Zenaida s letter-demand
The trial court dismissed the complaint for legal redemption, holding that Art
. 1623 does not prescribe any particular form of notifying co-owners on a
ppeal, the CA affirmed
ISSUE: Whether the letter-demand by Zenaida to Adalia, to which the deed
of sale was attached, can be considered as sufficient compliance with the
notice requirement of Art. 1623 for the purpose of legal redemption
HELD:
The petitioner points out that the case does not concern the particula
r form in which such notice must be given, but rather the sufficiency of notic
e given by a vendee in lieu of the required notice to be given by the vendor or
prospective vendor
The text of Art. 1623 clearly and expressly prescribes that the 30 days for
making the redemption shall be counted from notice in writing by the vend
or it makes sense to require that notice be given by the vendor and nobody else,
since the vendor of an undivided interest is in the best position to know who a
re his co-owners, who

under the law must be notified of the sale

Notice by the co-owner likewise removes all doubt as to the fact of the sale, it
s perfection, and its validity by not immediately notifying, or not notifying a
t all, a co- owner, the vendor can delay or even effectively prevent the meaning
ful exercise of the right of redemption
However, it would be unjust in the case at bar to
require the vendor Adela to serve notice of the sale, when the fact ha
s already been established in both lower courts Adalia has effectively
exercised her right when she deposited the PhP10,000 redemption price 7 days
after receiving the summons
Fallo
Petition granted, decision of the CA reversed
The decision in Etcuban v. CA is abandoned, and the one in Butte v. Manuel Uy a
nd Sons, Inc., as affirmed in Salatandol v. Retes, upheld
NOTE
The Court failed to negate or possibly appreciate the fact of Adalia s knowled
ge of the sale prior to the summons, as proven her letter-advise to the
tenants of the building
The period given by the Court to Adalia was 30 days after the receipt of the
summons on 5 August 1992, which is 4 September 1992