G.R. No. L-26855 April 17, 1989
FRANCISCO GARCIA, PAZ GARCIA, and MARIA GARCIA, petitioners, vs. JOSE CALALIMAN, PACIENCIA TRABADILLO & HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Third Division, respondents.

FACTS

Gelacio Garcia died intestate in 1946, leaving an unregistered parcel of land. His heirs, consisting of various nephews, nieces, and grandnephews, inherited the property. In December 1954, a group of these heirs executed an “Extra-judicial Partition and Deed of Sale,” selling their collective shares in the land to the spouses Jose Calaliman and Paciencia Trabadillo for P500. This deed was registered. Shortly after, another group of heirs sold their shares in the same property to the same spouses through an attorney-in-fact, and this second deed was also registered.
The petitioners, Francisco, Paz, and Maria Garcia, who were also co-heirs, filed a complaint for legal redemption. They alleged that their co-heir vendors never offered to sell the shares to them first, nor provided the written notice of sale required by law. They claimed they only learned of the sale from other sources and, within 30 days of such knowledge, offered to redeem the shares from the respondent spouses for a reasonable price, but the offer was refused. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo ruled in favor of the petitioners, upholding their right of legal redemption.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners’ right of legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code was properly exercised, considering the absence of a written notice of sale from the vendor co-heirs.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision, with modification. The Court held that the petitioners’ right of legal redemption subsisted because the 30-day redemption period had not commenced. Article 1088 mandates that the written notice must come from the vendor co-heir, not from any other source. The Court emphasized that this requirement is indispensable and exclusive; actual knowledge obtained elsewhere does not suffice. The registration of the deeds of sale, while constituting constructive notice for registered lands under the Torrens system, does not apply to unregistered property like the one in this case. Therefore, since the vendor co-heirs failed to provide the petitioners with the requisite written notification, the redemption period never began to run, and the petitioners’ subsequent offer to redeem was timely. The Court also found the respondents acted in bad faith by refusing the redemption and claiming ownership over the entire property despite knowing not all shares were sold. Consequently, the petitioners were awarded damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.