Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Alonzo vs. IAC: Digest By: Fredrick Rodel V. Atienza

    Uploaded by

    Dean Cainila
    1. The case involved the sale of inherited land by two siblings to the petitioners, without providing written notice to the co-heirs as required by Article 1088 of the Civil Code. 2. The trial court dismissed complaints by co-heirs to redeem the land, finding actual knowledge satisfied the notice requirement. The IAC reversed, stating written notice was required. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that actual knowledge was sufficient, as the spirit of the law is to ensure notice, not enforce a technical requirement. While the letter of the law requires written notice, the co-heirs undisputedly knew about the sales. The right of redemption had lapsed after more than 30 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Alonzo vs. IAC: Digest By: Fredrick Rodel V. Atienza

    Uploaded by

    Dean Cainila
    40 views1 page
    1. The case involved the sale of inherited land by two siblings to the petitioners, without providing written notice to the co-heirs as required by Article 1088 of the Civil Code. 2. The trial court dismissed complaints by co-heirs to redeem the land, finding actual knowledge satisfied the notice requirement. The IAC reversed, stating written notice was required. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that actual knowledge was sufficient, as the spirit of the law is to ensure notice, not enforce a technical requirement. While the letter of the law requires written notice, the co-heirs undisputedly knew about the sales. The right of redemption had lapsed after more than 30 days.

    Original Description:

    jkhg

    Original Title

    172973133-Alonzo-vs-IAC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The case involved the sale of inherited land by two siblings to the petitioners, without providing written notice to the co-heirs as required by Article 1088 of the Civil Code. 2. The trial court dismissed complaints by co-heirs to redeem the land, finding actual knowledge satisfied the notice requirement. The IAC reversed, stating written notice was required. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that actual knowledge was sufficient, as the spirit of the law is to ensure notice, not enforce a technical requirement. While the letter of the law requires written notice, the co-heirs undisputedly knew about the sales. The right of redemption had lapsed after more than 30 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    40 views1 page

    Alonzo vs. IAC: Digest By: Fredrick Rodel V. Atienza

    Uploaded by

    Dean Cainila
    1. The case involved the sale of inherited land by two siblings to the petitioners, without providing written notice to the co-heirs as required by Article 1088 of the Civil Code. 2. The trial court dismissed complaints by co-heirs to redeem the land, finding actual knowledge satisfied the notice requirement. The IAC reversed, stating written notice was required. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that actual knowledge was sufficient, as the spirit of the law is to ensure notice, not enforce a technical requirement. While the letter of the law requires written notice, the co-heirs undisputedly knew about the sales. The right of redemption had lapsed after more than 30 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Digest by: Fredrick Rodel V.

    Atienza

    Alonzo vs. IAC


    GR Number + Date: G.R. No. 72873 May 28, 1987 the reason for its enactment. In doing so, we
    defer not to "the letter that killeth" but to
    Petition: Petition for review by way of "the spirit that vivifieth," to give effect to the
    certiorari: Appeal from a decision of the Intermediate law maker's will.
    Appellate Court b. Was there a valid notice? Granting that the
    Petitioner: CARLOS ALONZO and CASIMIRA law requires the notice to be written, would
    ALONZO such notice be necessary in this case?
    Respondent: INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT Assuming there was a valid notice although
    and TECLA PADUA it was not in writing. would there be any
    Ponencia: Cruz, J. question that the 30-day period for
    redemption had expired long before the
    DOCTRINE: Statutory Construction: Legislative complaint was filed in 1977? In the face of
    Intent: The spirit, rather than the letter of a statute the established facts, we cannot accept the
    determines its construction, hence, a statute must be private respondents' pretense that they were
    read according to its spirit or intent. For what is within unaware of the sales made by their brother
    the spirit is within the letter but although it is not within and sister in 1963 and 1964. By requiring
    the letter thereof, and that which is within the letter but written proof of such notice, we would be
    not within the spirit is not within the statute. Stated closing our eyes to the obvious truth in favor
    differently, a thing which is within the intent of the of their palpably false claim of ignorance,
    lawmaker is as much within the statute as if within the thus exalting the letter of the law over its
    letter; and a thing which is within the letter of the statute purpose. The purpose is clear enough: to
    is not within the statute unless within the intent of the make sure that the redemptioners are duly
    lawmakers. notified. We are satisfied that in this case the
    other brothers and sisters were actually
    FACTS: informed, although not in writing, of the
    sales made in 1963 and 1964, and that such
    1. 5 Brothers and Sisters inherited qual pro notice was sufficient.
    indiviso shares a parcel of land registered in 'the c. The co-heirs in this case were undeniably
    name of their deceased parents. informed of the sales although no notice in
    2. One of them, through an absolute deed of sale, writing was given them. And there is no
    transferred to petitioners, his undivided share of doubt either that the 30-day period began
    the land. A year later, his sister sold her share in and ended during the 14 years between the
    a “Con Pacto de Retro Sale”. sales in question and the filing of the
    3. Petitioners occupied the two fifths of the land complaint for redemption in 1977, without
    representing the portions sold to them and the co-heirs exercising their right of
    thereafter enclosed it with a fence. redemption. These are the justifications for
    4. The son of the petitioners, Eduaro Alonzo and this exception.
    his wife, then built a semi-concrete house with
    the consent of the petitioners.
    5. One of the heirs to the land sought to redeem the DISPOSITION
    portions that were sold but was subsequently 1. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The
    denied due to him being an American citizen. decision of the respondent court is REVERSED
    6. Another co-heir, filed her own complaint and that of the trial court is reinstated, without
    invoking the same right of redemption claimed any pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
    by her brother.
    7. The trial court also dismiss this complaint, now
    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.
    8. IAC, in reversing the trial court, the respondent
    court declared that the notice required by the
    said article was written notice and that actual
    notice would not suffice as a substitute.
    ISSUES:
    1. WoN actual knowledge satisfied the requirement
    of Article 1088 of the Civil Code.

    PROVISIONS:
    Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary
    rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the
    co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser
    by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided
    they do so within the period of one month from the time
    they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor.

    RULING + RATIO:
    1. Yes.
    a. While we admittedly may not legislate, we
    nevertheless have the power to interpret the
    law in such a way as to reflect the will of the
    legislature. While we may not read into the
    law a purpose that is not there, we
    nevertheless have the right to read out of it

    You might also like