Digest by: Fredrick Rodel V. Atienza
Alonzo vs. IAC IAC GR Number + Date: G.R. No. 72873 May 28, 1987 Petition: Petition for review by way of certiorari: certiorari: Appeal from a decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court CARLOS ALONZ LONZO O and and CASI CASIM MIRA IRA Petitioner: CAR ALONZO Respondent: INTERMEDIA INTERMEDIATE TE APPELLATE APPELLATE COURT and TECLA PADUA Ponencia: Cruz, J. DOCTRINE: Statutory Construction: Legislative Intent: Intent: The spirit, rather than the letter of a statute determine determiness its construction, construction, hence, a statute 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 differ different ently, ly, a thing thing which which is within within the inten intentt 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 Broth Brothers ers and Sister Sisterss inher inherite ited d qual qual pro 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 land. A year later, his sister sold her her share in a “Con Pacto de Retro Sale”. 3. Petition Petitioners ers occup occupied ied the two fifths fifths of the land representing the portions sold to them and thereafter enclosed it with a fence. 4. The son son of the the peti petitio tioner ners, s, Eduaro Eduaro Alon Alonzo zo and and his wife, then built a semi-concrete house with the consent of the petitioners. 5. One of of the heir heirss to the the land land sought sought to redee redeem m the portions that were sold but was subsequently denied due to him being an American citizen. 6. Anothe Anotherr co-hei co-heir, r, filed filed her her own compl complain aintt invoking the same right of redemption claimed by her brother. 7. The tria triall court court also also dismis dismisss this this compla complaint int,, 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, notice, it was held that actual knowledge knowledge of the sales by the co-heirs satisfied the requirement of the law. 8. IAC, in reversi reversing ng the the trial trial court court,, the responden respondentt 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 actu actual al knowl knowledg edgee satisfi satisfied ed the requ require iremen mentt of Article 1088 of the Civil Code. PROVISIONS: Art. 1088. 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 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 law a purpose that is not there, we nevertheless have the right to read out of it
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 such noti notice ce be nece necess ssar ary y in this this case case?? Assuming there was a valid notice although it was not in writing. would there be any ques questtion ion that that the the 30-da 0-day y peri period od for for redemp redemptio tion n had expire expired d long long before 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 their palpabl palpably y false false claim claim of ignora ignoranc nce, e, thus exalting the letter of the law over its purpos purpose. e. The purpos purposee is clear clear enough enough:: to make sure that the redemptioners are duly notified. We are satisfied that in this case the other other brothe brothers rs and sister sisterss were were actual actually ly inform informed, ed, althou although gh not in writin writing, g, of the sales made in 1963 and 1964, and that such notice was sufficient. c. The co-heirs co-heirs in this case were undeniably 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 sale saless in ques questi tion on and and the the fili filing ng of the the complaint for redemption in 1977, without the the co-h co-hei eirs rs exer exerci cisi sing ng thei theirr righ rightt 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.
