CARLOS ALONZO and CASIMIRA ALONZO

vs.
INTERMEDIATE APELLATE COURT and TECLA PADUA
G.R. No. 72878, May 28, 1987

CRUZ, J.:

FACTS: There were five brothers and sisters who equally pro indiviso divided and shares the land
that was registered in their deceased parents name under OCT No. 10977 of the Registry of
Deeds of Tarlac. One of the siblings Celestino Padua sold his undivided share by absolute sale
costing PHP 550.00 in March 15, 1963. A year after, on April 22, 1964 his sister Estequia Padua
also sold her own share to the same vendee as his brother for the sum of PHP 400.00 through
Con Pacto de Retro Sale. The petitioners later occupied an area corresponding to two-fifths of the
whole portion of the lot and subsequently enclosed the same with a fence sold to them. In 1975,
petitioner’s son Eduardo Alonzo and his wife built a semi-concrete house on a part of the
enclosed area. On February 25, 1976 one of the coheirs Mariano Padua sought to redeem the
area sold to the vendees/petitioners, but his complaint was dismissed when it appeared that he was
an American Citizen. A year after, another coheir Tecla Padua filed a complaint invoking her
same right of redemption claimed by her brother. The trial court also dismissed the complaint on
the ground that the right had expired, it was not taken cared of within 30-day notice of the sales in
1963 and 1964. Despite the fact that the vendors did not disseminate a written notice to their
coheirs, it was obvious that actual knowledge by the coheirs satisfied the requirements of the law.
The final decision of the respondent’s court is reversed without any pronouncement as it costs.

ISSUE: Is actual knowledge enough to satisfied the requirement of Article 1088 of the Civil Code?

RULING: Yes. As the petition is granted and the decision of the respondent court is reversed and
that of the trial court is reinstated, It is so ordered.