Digest by: Fredrick Rodel V.

Atienza

Alonzo vs. IAC

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

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