This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-10-31 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Though the Code does not prescribe any particular form of written notice nor any distinctive method for written notification of redemption, the method of notification remains exclusive, there being no alternative provided by law.[22] This proceeds from the very purpose of Article 1088, which is to keep strangers to the family out of a joint ownership, if, as is often the case, the presence of outsiders be undesirable and the other heir or heirs be willing and in a position to repurchase the share sold.[23] | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The interpretation was somehow modified in the case of De Conejero, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.[34] wherein it was pointed out that Article 1623 "does not prescribe a particular form of notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner" thus, as long as the redemptioner was notified in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof, the redemption period starts to run. This view was reiterated in Etcuban v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.,[35] Cabrera v. Villanueva,[36] Garcia, et al. v. Calaliman, et al.,[37] Distrito, et al. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.,[38] and Mariano, et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.[39] | |||||