Hernandez v.

Quitain
petitioners respondents summary
G.R. No. L-48457 Date November 29, 1988 Perla Hernandez Hon. Pedro Quitain and Ernesta M. Valdemoro

Hernandez bought one of ex-co-owners lot who now seeks legal redemption. Court held that after partitioning, legal redemption no longer applies.

facts of the case

Perla Hernandez bought a parcel of land from Sancho Manlapaz. This land was originally part of a larger parcel of land which belonged to the spouses Crispulo Manlapaz and Antonia Villanueva. After their death, their children, Zosima, Jose, Sulpicio, Iluminada, Damaso, Sancho and Ernesta extrajudicially partitioned the land. Sancho sold his lot to Hernandez and Jose sold his lot (which was adjacent to Sanchos) to Ernesta. Respondent seeks redemption, claiming that she was not informed of Sanchos sale, depositing w/ the trial court Php 3,000. Petitioner countered this argument by stating that there was already a partition, therefore Respondent can no longer ask for redemption. TC: Applying 1620 and 1623, respondent was a co-owner and entitled to her right to redemption to buy said lot for 3000 pesos.

Issue/s ratio

WON Valdemoro is entitled to right of redemption. No.

Basis of the legal right of redemption is the existence of a co-ownership. CC 484 says that there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. The court also further emphasizes that there is no co-ownership when the owner of a portion has been concretely determined and identified. The lot has been concretely divided. There has been extrajudicial partitioning of land, on 30 December 1974. By virtue of the partition, each child received his respective portion. The inherited property had been subdivided and the heirs had taken possession of their respective portions. Purpose of legal redemption is to reduce the number of participants in the coownership of a thing or right. As cited in Caro v. CA: Inasmuch as the purpose of the law in establishing the right of legal redemption between co-owners is to reduce the number of the participants until the community is done away with (Viola v. Tecson, 49 Phil. 808), once the property is subdivided and distributed among the co-owners, the community has terminated and there is no reason to sustain any right of legal redemption. Legal redemption no longer available once property has already been partitioned. In Umengan, correctly cited by petitioner, the court said that the right of legal redemption under Article 1620, given to a co-owner in case any one of the other co-heirs or co-owners sells his share to a third person, cannot be invoked where the property had already been partitioned judicially or extrajudicially. (No longer co-ownership issues) Elements of Art 1622 (Right of redemption for adjoining owners) not proven. Art. 1622 of the Civil Code, she can still redeem the property as an adjoining owner, having

bought the lot of her brother Jose, which abutted the lot adjudicated to Sancho-Article 1622 reads as follows: Whenever a piece of urban land which is so small and so situated that a major portion thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose within a reasonable time, having been bought merely for speculation, is about to be resold, the owner of any adjoining land has a right of preemption at a reasonable price. If the re-sale has been perfected, the owner whose intended use of the land in question appears best justified shall be preferred. In support of her theory, private respondent maintains that she alleged in her complaint the elements necessary for the application of Article 1622 to wit: (1) that the piece of land is urban land, being situated in the poblacion of Baleno, Masbate; (2) that since the lot is only 46.40 square meters, its area is so small that a major portion thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose within a reasonable time; and (3) that it was bought merely for speculation. She failed to allege or prove a fourth element necessary to bring into operation Article 1622-that the land is about to be resold, or that its resale has been perfected. She also failed to prove the concurrence of the other elements. ROC 46 Sec 3 merely directory. Substantial justice over mere technicality. Respondent maintains that there was late filing as the SC only received the appeal after one year and eight months after its approval. The undue delay should result in the dismissal of the appeal since Section 3 of Rule 46 states that if the record on appeal is not received by the Court within thirty days after the approval thereof, the appellee may upon notice to the appellant move the court to grant an order directing the Clerk of Court forthwith to transmit the record on appeal or to declare the same abandoned for failure to prosecute. The court held here that the invocation of said rule is clearly an afterthought. Furthermore, in a fairly recent decision, this Court emphasized its policy that technical rules should accede to the demands of substantial justice