Garcia v. Calaliman CARLOS ALONZO and CASIMIRA ALONZO, petitioners,vs.
G.R. No. L-26855 April 17, 1989
On February 11, 1946, one Gelacio Garcia died intestate, leaving a parcel of
unregistered land. On his death the property was inherited by his nephews, nieces,
grandnephews who are the descendants of his late brothers, Pedro, Simeon,
Buenaventura and Marcos.
The heirs, Juanita Bertomo, Joaquin Garcia, Porfirio Garcia, Dioscoro Garcia,
Flora Garcia, Consolacion Garcia, Remedios Garcia, Trinidad Garcia, Baltazar Garcia
signed a document entitled, “Extra-judicial Partition and Deed of Sale”.
The heirs, Juanita Bertomo, Joaquin Garcia, Porfirio Garcia, Dioscoro Garcia,
Flora Garcia, Consolacion Garcia, Remedios Garcia, Trinidad Garcia, Baltazar Garcia
signed a document entitled, “Extra-judicial Partition and Deed of Sale”.
Heirs Francisco Garcia, Paz Garcia, and Maria Garcia, petitioners herein, filed
against the spouses Jose Calaliman and Paciencia Trabadillo, private respondents an
action for legal redemption of the 3/4 portion of the parcel of land inherited by the heirs
from the late Gelacio Garcia, which portion was sold by their co-heirs to the defendants.
ISSUE: 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.
Yes. 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
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and TECLA PADUA, respondents.
Perpetuo L.B. Alonzo for petitioners.
Luis R. Reyes for private respondent.
Ponente: CRUZ
FACTS:
Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso shares a parcel of land registered
in ‘the name of their deceased parents. One of them transferred his undivided share by
way of absolute sale. A year later, his sister sold her share in a “Con Pacto de Retro Sale”.
By virtue of such agreements, the petitioners occupied, after the said sales, an area
corresponding to two-fifths of the said lot, representing the portions sold to them. The
vendees subsequently enclosed the same with a fence. with their consent, their son
Eduardo Alonzo and his wife built a semi-concrete house on a part of the enclosed area.
One of the five coheirs sought to redeem the area sold to petitioners but was dismissed
when it appeared that he was an American citizen. Another coheir filed her own complaint
invoking the same right of redemption of her brother. Trial court dismissed the complaint,
on the ground that the right had lapsed, not having been exercised within thirty days from
notice of the sales. Although there was no written notice, it was held that actual knowledge
of the sales by the co-heirs satisfied the requirement of the law. Respondent court reversed
the decision of the Trial Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not actual knowledge satisfied the requirement of Art. 1088 of the New Civil
Code.
HELD:
YES. Decision of respondent court was reversed and that of trial court reinstated.
RATIO:
The co-heirs in this case were undeniably informed of the sales although no notice in writing
was given them. And there is no doubt either that the 30-day period began and ended
during the 14 years between the sales in question and the filing of the complaint for
redemption in 1977, without the co-heirs exercising their right of redemption. These are the
justifications for this exception.
While [courts] may not read into the law a purpose that is not there, [courts] nevertheless
have the right to read out of it the reason for its enactment. In doing so, [courts] defer not
to “the letter that killeth” but to “the spirit that vivifieth,” to give effect to the law maker’s will.
MARIANO V. CA | GOSIENGFIAO, 222 SCRA 736- Redemption by a Co-owner

Redemption of the whole property by a co-owner within the redemption period does not

terminate the co-ownership and does not vest in him sole ownership.

FACTS:
Francisco Gosiengfaio is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Tuguegarao. In his
lifetime, he mortgaged the land to Rural Bank of Tuguegarao to secure payment of a loan.
Francisco died in without paying the debt. His intestate heirs were: his wife Antonia and
children Amparo, Carlos, Severo, Grace, Emma, Ester, Francisco, Jr., Norma, Lina, and
Jacinto.

The bank foreclosed on the mortgage but before the redemption period expired, Antonia,
Emma, Lina, Norma, Lina, Carlos and Severo executed a deed of assignment of the right
of redemption in favor of Amparo. Amparo later on sold the land to Spouses Mariano.

Grace Gosengfiao, and the other heirs excuded in the deed of assignment filed a complaint
for recovery and legal redemption with damages against spouses Mariano.

RTC decided in favor of spouses Mariano. CA for Grace Gosiengfia, et. al.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a co-owner who redeems the whole property with her own personal funds
becomes the sole owner of said property and terminates the existing state of co-ownership?

HELD:
No. Admittedly, as the property in question was mortgaged by the decedent, a co-
ownership existed among the heirs during the period given by law to redeem the foreclosed
property. Redemption of the whole property by a co-owner does not vest in him sole
ownership over said property but will inure to the benefit of all co-owners. In other words, it
will not end to the existing state of co-ownership. Redemption is not a mode of terminating
a co-ownership.

Respondents 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.