STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BASICS

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
FRANCISCO V BOISER (2000)
DISPUTED MATTER FACTS
May a notice sent by the vendee be sufficient in lieu of that required by Petitioner Adalia B. Francisco and 3 of her sisters, Ester, Elizabeth and
Article 1623 to be given by the vendor? NO Adeluisa were co-owners of four parcels of registered lands
- 1 on which stands the Ten Commandments Building, Caloocan
DOCTRINE City.
Art. 1623 of the Civil Code is clear in requiring that the written - They sold 1/5 of their undivided share in the subject parcels of
notification should come from the vendor or prospective vendor, not land to their mother,
from any other person. The principal difference between Art. 1524 of - Adela thus making the latter a co-owner of said real property to
the former Civil Code and Art. 1623 of the present one is that the the extent of the share sold.
former did not specify who must give the notice, whereas the present - Without the knowledge of the other co-owners, Adela sold 1/5
one expressly says the notice must be given by the vendor. share to Boiser who is another sister of Adalia.
- Respondent Boiser demanded to Francisco her share in the
SUMMARY rentals being collected from the tenants of the building.
Adalia Francisco and her sisters were co-owners of parcels of land in
Caloocan City. Without the knowledge of the other co-owners, Adela Francisco then informed Boiser that she was exercising her right of
sold 1/5 share to Boiser. When Bosier began collecting rents from the redemption as a co-owner of the subject property.
properties, Francisco informed her that she was exercising her right of - She then deposited the amount of P10,000.00 as redemption
redemption as a co-owner of the subject property and that the 30-day price with the Clerk of Court.
period of redemption had not elapsed. The trial court sided with Bosier - Francisco now alleges that the 30-day period for redemption
when it considered her letter sent to Francisco with a copy of the deed under Art. 1623 of the Civil Code had not begun to run against
of sale as substantial compliance with the required written notice under her
Art. 1623 of the New Civil Code. - since the vendor, Adela Blas, neve
- r informed her and the other owners about the sale to Boiser.
According to the Supreme Court, Art. 1623 of the Civil Code clearly She learned about the sale after she received the summons in
and expressly prescribes that the thirty (30) days for making the Civil Case No. 15510, together with the complaint
pre-emption or redemption are to be counted from notice in writing by
the vendor. The seller of an undivided interest is in the best position to Respondent Boiser, on the other hand, contended that Francisco knew
know who are his co-owners that under the law must be notified of the about the sale. Reasons:
sale. Therefore, Boiser, not being the vendor who sent the notice, (1) On May 30, 1992, she wrote Francisco a letter 2 informing
cannot affect the right of redemption by Francisco. Petition granted. the latter about the sale, with a demand that the rentals corresponding
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BASICS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
FRANCISCO V BOISER (2000)
to her 1/5 share of the subject property be remitted to her; with a copy
of the Deed of Sale 3 between respondent and Adela Blas. Trial Court and CA
(2) Letters were likewise sent by Boiser to the tenants of the - Relied on the rulings in
building, namely, Seiko Service Center and Glitters Corporation, 1. Distrito v. Court of Appeals - Art. 1623 does not prescribe
informing them of the sale and requesting that, thenceforth, they pay any particular form of written notice, nor any distinctive method for
1/5 of the monthly rentals notifying the redemptioner.
(3) Francisco received these letters is proved by the fact that on 2. De Conejero v. Court of Appeals and Badillo v. Ferrer -
June 8, 1992, she wrote 5 the building’s tenants advising them to furnishing the redemptioner with a copy of the deed of sale is
disregard respondent’s request and continue paying full rentals directly equivalent to giving him the written notice required by law.
to her.chanrob
Petitioner Francisco
Trial court dismissed petitioner’s complaint for legal redemption. - The cited cases are not relevant because the present case
- Ground: Art. 1623 does not prescribe any particular form of does not concern the particular form in which notice must be
notifying co-owners about a sale of property owned in common given
to enable them to exercise their right of legal redemption.
- While no written notice was given by the vendor, Adela Blas, to Rather, the issue here is whether a notice sent by the vendee
petitioner or the other owners, Francisco herself admitted that may be given in lieu of that required to be given by the vendor
she had received Boiser's letter of May 30, 1992 and was in or prospective vendor.
fact furnished a copy of the deed evidencing such sale.
- Consequently, the 30-day period of redemption should be Supreme Court
counted not from August 5, 1992, when Francisco received - Art. 1623 of the Civil Code provides: The right of legal
summons, but at the latest, from June 8, 1992, the date pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within
Francisco wrote the tenants of the building advising them to thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor,
continue paying rentals in full to her. Petitioner failed to redeem or by the vendor, as the case maybe. The deed of sale shall not
the property within that period. be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by
an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice
ISSUE/ HELD thereof to all possible redemptioners.chanrobl
(1) WON the letter of May 30, 1992 by Bosier notifying Francisco
of the sale can be considered sufficient notice requirement of Art. - The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining
1623 for the purpose of legal redemption - NO, Bosier is not the owners.
vendor
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BASICS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
FRANCISCO V BOISER (2000)
- Compared to serious prejudice to Francisco's right of legal
Application to the Case redemption, the only adverse effect to vendor Adela Blas and
- Plaintiffs have not been furnished any written notice of sale or a respondent-vendee is that the sale could not be registered. It is
copy thereof by Eufemia Omole, the vendor. non-binding, only insofar as third persons are concerned.
- Said plaintiffs’ right to exercise the legal right of preemption or
redemption, given to a co-owner when any one of the other (3) WHEN do we start to count the redemption period
coowners sells his share in the thing owned in common to a In the present case, for instance, the sale took place in 1986, but it was
third person, as provided for in Article 1623 of the Civil Code, kept secret until 1992 when vendee (herein respondent) needed to
has not yet accrued. notify petitioner about the sale to demand 1/5 rentals from the property
- Conclusion: There was thus a return to the doctrine laid down in sold. Compared to serious prejudice to petitioner’s right of legal
Butte. That ruling is sound. Reasons: (a) Art. 1623 of the Civil redemption, the only adverse effect to vendor Adela Blas and
Code is clear in requiring that the written notification should respondent-vendee is that the sale could not be registered.
come from the vendor or prospective vendor, not from any other - It is, therefore, unjust when the subject sale has already been
person. (b) The principal difference between Art. 1524 of the established before both lower courts and now, before this
former Civil Code and Art. 1623 of the present one is that the Court, to further delay petitioner’s exercise of her right of legal
former did not specify who must give the notice, whereas the redemption by requiring that notice be given by the vendor
present one expressly says the notice must be given by the before petitioner can exercise her right.
vendor. - For this reason, the receipt by petitioner of summons in August
1992 constitutes actual knowledge on the basis of which
(2) WON the notice required in Art. 1623 be given by the vendor - petitioner may now exercise her right of redemption within 30
YES (BUT, non-compliance will only affect third persons) days from finality of this decision.
The vendor of an undivided interest is in the best position to know who
are his co-owners who under the law must be notified of the sale. DISPOSITIVE WHEREFORE
- For in a contract of sale, the seller is in the best position to In view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of
confirm whether consent to the essential obligation of selling the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the Regional Trial Court,
the property and transferring ownership thereof to the vendee Branch 122, Caloocan City is ordered to effect petitioner’s exercise of
has been given. her right of legal redemption in Civil Case No. C-17055. SO
- In the present case, for instance, the sale took place in 1986, ORDERED.
but it was kept secret until 1992 when vendee (Boiser) needed
to notify Francisco about the sale to demand 1/5 rentals from
the property sold.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BASICS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
FRANCISCO V BOISER (2000)
G.R. No. 137677 May 31, 2000 redemption price with the Clerk of Court. This move to redeem the
property was interposed as a permissive counterclaim in Civil Case No.
ADALIA B. FRANCISCO, petitioner, vs. ZENAIDA F. BOISER, 15510. However, said case was dismissed after respondent was
respondent. declared non-suited with the result that petitioner's counterclaim was
likewise dismissed.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in On September 14, 1995, petitioner instituted Civil Case No. C-17055
CA-G.R. CV No. 55518 which affirmed in toto the decision of the before the Regional Trial Court in Caloocan City. She alleged that the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 122, Caloocan City, dismissing 30-day period for redemption under Art. 1623 of the Civil Code had not
petitioner's complaint for redemption of property against respondent. begun to run against her since the vendor, Adela Blas, never informed
her and the other owners about the sale to respondent. She learned
The facts are as follows: about the sale only on August 5, 1992, after she received the
summons in Civil Case No. 15510, together with the complaint.
Petitioner Adalia B. Francisco and three of her sisters, Ester, Elizabeth
and Adeluisa, were co-owners of four parcels of registered lands1 on Respondent, on the other hand, contended that petitioner knew about
which stands the Ten Commandments Building at 689 Rizal Avenue the sale as early as May 30, 1992, because, on that date, she wrote
Extension, Caloocan City. On August 6, 1979, they sold 1/5 of their petitioner a letter2 informing the latter about the sale, with a demand
undivided share in the subject parcels of land to their mother, Adela that the rentals corresponding to her 1/5 share of the subject property
Blas, for P10,000.00, thus making the latter a co-owner of said real be remitted to her. Said letter was sent with a copy of the Deed of Sale
property to the extent of the share sold. 3 between respondent and Adela Blas. On the same date, letters4
were likewise sent by respondent to the tenants of the building,
On August 8, 1986, without the knowledge of the other co-owners, namely, Seiko Service Center and Glitters Corporation, informing them
Adela Blas sold her 1/5 share for P10,000.00 to respondent Zenaida of the sale and requesting that, thenceforth, they pay 1/5 of the
Boiser who is another sister of petitioner. monthly rentals to respondent. That petitioner received these letters is
proved by the fact that on June 8, 1992, she wrote5 the building's
On August 5, 1992, petitioner received summons, with a copy of the tenants advising them to disregard respondent's request and continue
complaint in Civil Case No. 15510, filed by respondent demanding her paying full rentals directly to her.
share in the rentals being collected by petitioner from the tenants of the
building. Petitioner then informed respondent that she was exercising On August 19, 1996, the trial court dismissed petitioner's complaint for
her right of redemption as a co-owner of the subject property. On legal redemption. It ruled that Art. 1623 does not prescribe any
August 12, 1992, she deposited the amount of P10,000.00 as particular form of notifying co-owners about a sale of property owned in
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BASICS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
FRANCISCO V BOISER (2000)
common to enable them to exercise their right of legal redemption.
While no written notice was given by the vendor, Adela Blas, to On the other hand, petitioner points out that the cited cases are not
petitioner or the other owners, petitioner herself admitted that she had relevant because the present case does not concern the particular
received respondent's letter of May 30, 1992 and was in fact furnished form in which notice must be given. Rather, the issue here is whether a
a copy of the deed evidencing such sale. The trial court considered the notice sent by the vendee may be given in lieu of that required to be
letter sent by respondent to petitioner with a copy of the deed of sale given by the vendor or prospective vendor.
as substantial compliance with the required written notice under Art.
1623 of the New Civil Code.8 Consequently, the 30-day period of Art. 1623 of the Civil Code provides:
redemption should be counted not from August 5, 1992, when
petitioner received summons in Civil Case No. 15510, but at the latest, The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be
from June 8, 1992, the date petitioner wrote the tenants of the building exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by
advising them to continue paying rentals in full to her. Petitioner failed the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case maybe.
to redeem the property within that period. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of
Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that
Petitioner brought the matter to the Court of Appeals, which, on he has given written notice thereof to all possible
October 26, 1998, affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. redemptioners.
She moved for reconsideration, but her motion was denied by the
appellate court on February 16, 1999. Hence, this petition. The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of
adjoining owners.
The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the letter of May 30,
1992 sent by respondent to petitioner notifying her of the sale on In ruling that the notice given by the vendee was sufficient, the
August 8, 1986 of Adela Blas' 1/5 share of the property to respondent, appellate court cited the case of Etcuban v. Court of Appeals 1 in which
containing a copy of the deed evidencing such sale, can be considered it was held:
sufficient as compliance with the notice requirement of Art. 1623 for the
purpose of legal redemption. The trial court and the Court of Appeals Petitioner contends that vendors (his co-heirs) should
relied on the ruling in Distrito v. Court of Appeals that Art. 1623 does be the ones to give him written notice and not the vendees
not prescribe any particular form of written notice, nor any distinctive (defendants or private respondent herein) citing the case of
method for notifying the redemptioner. They also invoked the rulings in Butte vs. Manuel Uy & Sons. Inc., 4 SCRA 526. Such
De Conejero v. Court of Appeals and Badillo v. Ferrer that furnishing contention is of no moment. While it is true that written notice is
the redemptioner with a copy of the deed of sale is equivalent to giving required by the law (Art. 1623), it is equally true that, the same
him the written notice required by law. "Art. 1623 does not prescribe any particular form of notice, nor
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BASICS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
FRANCISCO V BOISER (2000)
any distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner." So long, However, in the later case of Salatandol v. Retes, 16 decided a year
therefore, as the latter is informed in writing of the sale and the after the Etcuban case, the Court expressly affirmed the ruling in Butte
particulars thereof, the 30 days for redemption start running, that the notice required by Art. 1623 must be given by the vendor. In
and the redemptioner has no real cause to complain. (De Salatandol, the notice given to the redemptioner by the Register of
Conejero et al v. Court of Appeals, et al., 16 SCRA 775). In the Deeds of the province where the subject land was situated was held to
Conejero case, we ruled that the furnishing of a copy of the be insuffucient. Resolving the issue of whether such notice was
disputed deed of sale to the redemptioner was equivalent to the equivalent to the notice from the vendor required under Art. 1623, this
giving of written notice required by law in "a more authentic Court stated:
manner than any other writing could have done," and that We
cannot adopt a stand of having to sacrifice substance to The appeal is impressed with merit. In Butte vs. Manuel
technicality. More so in the case at bar, where the vendors or Uy and Sons, Inc., the Court ruled that Art. 1623 of the Civil
co-owners of petitioner stated under oath in the deeds of sale Code clearly and expressly prescribes that the thirty (30) days
that notice of sale had been given to prospective redemptioners for making the pre-emption or redemption are to be counted
in accordance with Art. 16232 of the Civil Code. "A sworn from notice in writing by the vendor. The Court said:
statement or clause in a deed of sale to the effect that a written
notice of sale was given to possible redemptioners or . . . The test of Article 1623 clearly and expressly
co-owners might be used to determine whether an offer to prescribes that the thirty days for making the redemption are to
redeem was made on or out of time, or whether there was be counted from notice in writing by the vendor. Under the old
substantial compliance with the requirement of said Art. 1623." law (Civil Code of 1889, Art. 1524), it was immaterial who gave
the notice; so long as the redeeming co-owner learned of the
In Etcuban, notice to the co-owners of the sale of the share of one of alienation in favor of the stranger, the redemption period began
them was given by the vendees through their counterclaim in the action to run. It is thus apparent that the Philippine legislature in Article
for legal redemption. Despite the apparent meaning of Art. 1623, it was 1623 deliberately selected a particular method of giving notice,
held in that case that it was "of no moment" that the notice of sale was and that method must be deemed exclusive (39 Am. Jur., 237;
given not by the vendor but by the vendees. "So long as the [co-owner] Payne vs. State, 12 S.W. (2d) (528). As ruled in Wampher vs.
is informed in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof, the 30 Lecompte, 150 Atl. 458 (aff'd. in 75 Law Ed. [U.S.] 275) —
days for redemption stair running, and the redemptioner has no cause
to complain," so it was held. The contrary doctrine of Butte v. Manuel Why these provisions were inserted in the statute we
Uy and Sons, Inc. 15 was thus overruled sub silencio. are not informed, but we may assume until the contrary is
shown, that a state of facts in respect thereto existed, which
warranted the legislature in so legislating.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BASICS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
FRANCISCO V BOISER (2000)
The reasons for requiring that the notice should be In the second place, it makes sense to require that the notice required
given by the seller, and not by the buyer, are easily divined. The in Art. 1623 be given by the vendor and by nobody else. As explained
seller of an undivided interest is in the best position to know by this Court through Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Butte, the vendor of an
who are his co-owners that under the law must be notified of undivided interest is in the best position to know who are his co-owners
the sale. Also, the notice by the seller removes all doubts as to who under the law must be notified of the sale. It is likewise the
fact of the sale, its perfection, and its validity, the notice being a notification from the seller, not from anyone else, which can remove all
reaffirmation thereof; so that that party notified need not doubts as to the fact of the sale, its perfection, and its validity, for in a
entertain doubt that the seller may still contest the alienation. contract of sale, the seller is in the best position to confirm whether
This assurance would not exist if the notice should be given by consent to the essential obligation of selling the property and
the buyer. transferring ownership thereof to the vendee has been given.

In the case at bar, the plaintiffs have not been furnished Now, it is clear that by not immediately notifying the co-owner, a vendor
any written notice of sale or a copy thereof by Eufemia Omole, can delay or even effectively prevent the meaningful exercise of the
the vendor. Said plaintiffs' right to exercise the legal right of right of redemption. In the present case, for instance, the sale took
preemption or redemption, given to a co-owner when any one place in 1986, but it was kept secret until 1992 when vendee (herein
of the other co-owners sells his share in the thing owned in respondent) needed to notify petitioner about the sale to demand 1/5
common to a third person, as provided for in Article 1623 of the rentals from the property sold. Compared to serious prejudice to
Civil Code, has not yet accrued. petitioner's right of legal redemption, the only adverse effect to vendor
Adela Blas and respondent-vendee is that the sale could not be
There was thus a return to the doctrine laid down in Butte. That ruling registered. It is non-binding, only insofar as third persons are
is sound. In the first place, reversion to the ruling in Butte is proper. Art. concerned. 17 It is, therefore, unjust when the subject sale has already
1623 of the Civil Code is clear in requiring that the written notification been established before both lower courts and now, before this Court,
should come from the vendor or prospective vendor, not from any other to further delay petitioner's exercise of her right of legal redemption by
person. There is, therefore, no room for construction. Indeed, the requiring that notice be given by the vendor before petitioner can
principal difference between Art. 1524 of the former Civil Code and Art. exercise her right. For this reason, we rule that the receipt by petitioner
1623 of the present one is that the former did not specify who must of summons in Civil Case No. 15510 on August 5, 1992 constitutes
give the notice, whereas the present one expressly says the notice actual knowledge on the basis of which petitioner may now exercise
must be given by the vendor. Effect must be given to this change in her right of redemption within 30 days from finality of this decision.
statutory language.
Our ruling is not without precedent. In Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 18 we dispensed with the need for written notification
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BASICS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
FRANCISCO V BOISER (2000)
considering that the redemptioners lived on the same lot on which the
purchaser lived and were thus deemed to have actual knowledge of
the sales. We stated that the 30-day period of redemption started, not
from the date of the sales in 1963 and 1964, but sometime between
those years and 1976, when the first complaint for redemption was
actually filed. For 13 years, however, none of the co-heirs moved to
redeem the property. We thus ruled that the right of redemption had
already been extinguished because the period for its exercise had
already expired.

In the present case, as previously discussed, receipt by petitioner of

summons in Civil Case No. 15510 on August 5, 1992 amounted to
actual knowledge of the sale from which the 30-day period of
redemption commenced to run. Petitioner had until September 4, 1992
within which to exercise her right of legal redemption, but on August
12, 1992 she deposited the P10,000.00 redemption price. As
petitioner's exercise of said right was timely, the same should be given
effect.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED and

the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 122, Caloocan City is ordered to effect petitioner's
exercise of her right of legal redemption in Civil Case No. C-17055.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo and Buena, JJ., concur.

Quisumbing and De Leon, Jr., JJ., are on leave.