Dominico Ectuban V CA

Dominico Ectuban v CA
FACTS:
Plaintiff inherited a piece of land with an area of approximately 14.0400 hectares together with his co-
heirs from their deceased father. Said piece of land was declared in their names as heirs of Eleuterio
Etcuban was the subject matter in dispute.
In said case, petitioner Dominico, and Pedro, Vicente, Felicitas, Anastacio, Froilan, Alfonso, Advincula,
Anunciaciori Jesus, Aguinaldo, surnamed Etcuban were declared as co-owners of the property in
question. Thereafter the 11 co-heirs executed in favor of private respondents 11 deeds of sale of their
respective shares in the co-ownership for the total sum of P26,340.00.
In his complaint before the trial court, plaintiff alleged that his co-owners leased and/or sold their
respective shares without giving due notice to him as a co-owner notwithstanding his intimations
to them that he was willing to buy all their respective shares. He further maintained that even upon
inquiry from his co-heirs/co-owners, and also from the alleged buyers (defendants) he elicited nothing
from them. Plaintiff discovered for the first time the existence of these 11 deeds of sale during the
hearing on January 31, 1972 of Civil Case No. BN-87, entitled Jesus C. Songalia vs. Dominico ETCUBAN in
the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XI. When he verified the supposed sales with his co-owners
only 3 of them admitted their respective sales. Hence, the filing of the case by petitioner for legal
redemption.
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
Defendants (private respondents herein) in

denying the material allegations of the complaint,
argued by way of affirmative and special defenses
that plaintiff has no cause of petition against
them; that the action is barred by prescription or
laches; that the provisions of the law pertaining to
legal redemption have been fully complied with in
respect to the sale of the disputed land to them;
that no action was taken by plaintiff despite the
information plaintiff received from defendants
thru his counsel and that consequently plaintiff
lost his right to redeem under Art. 1623 of the
new Civil Code because the right of redemption
may be exercised only within 30 days from notice
of sale and plaintiff was definitely notified of the
sale years ago as shown by the records.
RTC: rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants
CA: Affirmed.
Written notice was given to plaintiff-appellee in the form of an answer with counterclaim to the
complaint in Civil Case No. BN-109 which appears on the records to have been filed on March 18,
1972. Said court ruled that "this notice is sufficient to inform the plaintiff about the sale and the
reckoning date for the 30-day period commenced upon receipt thereof. No other notice is needed
under the premises because it is the substance conveyed rather than the form embodying it, that
counts.
RULING:
The records reveal that on May 27, 1974, plaintiff-appellee deposited with the lower court the amount of
P26,340.00 the redemption price. Since the answer with counterclaim was filed on March 18, 1972, the
deposit made on May 27, 1974 was clearly outside the 30-day period of legal redemption. The period
within which the right of legal redemption or preemption may be exercised is non-extendible.
Petitioner contends that vendors (his co-heirs) should be the ones to give him written notice and not the
vendees. Such contention is of no moment. While it is true that written notice is required by the law (Art.
1623), it is equally true that the same "Art. 1623 does not prescribe any particular form of notice, nor any
distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner. "So long, therefore, as the latter is informed in writing
of the sale and the particulars thereof, the 30 days for redemption start running, and the redemptioner
has no real cause to complain.
More so in the case at bar, where the vendors or co-owners of petitioner stated under oath in the deeds
of sale. That notice of sale had been given to prospective redemptioners in accordance with Art. 1623 of
the Civil Code. "A sworn statement or clause in a deed of sale to the effect that a written notice of sale
was given to possible redemptioners or co-owners might be used to determine whether an offer to
redeem was made on or out of time, or whether there was substantial compliance with the requirement
of said Art. 1623.
In resume, We find that petitioner failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Art. 1623 on
legal redemption and We see no reason to reverse the assailed decision of the respondent court.

Dominico Ectuban V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dominico Ectuban V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dominico Ectuban V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dominico Ectuban v CA

Defendants (private respondents herein) in

RTC: rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants

You might also like