G.R. No. 250839 - Philippine Bank of Communications Employees Association vs. Philippine Bank of Communications

The property in question formed part of a larger parcel originally owned by the spouses Crispulo Manlapaz and Antonia Villanueva.
After their death, the heirs—Zosima, Jose, Sulpicio, Iluminada, Damaso, Sancho, and Ernesta—extrajudicially partitioned the land on December 30, 1974, with each child receiving a distinct portion.
As a result of the partition, the co-heir Sancho Manlapaz became the owner of a specific parcel, which would later be sold.

On March 8, 1975, petitioner Perla Hernandez purchased a 46.40-square-meter lot from Sancho Manlapaz for ₱3,000.00. This lot was part of the subdivided inherited property.
Shortly thereafter, on April 8, 1975, Jose—whose adjoining portion had been sold to Ernesta—completed a sale to private respondent Ernesta Manlapaz-Valdemoro.
The parties, by prior stipulation at the pre-trial conference, acknowledged that the inherited property had already been partitioned and that the lot in controversy was adjacent but distinctly separate from the lot acquired by the respondent.

On April 29, 1975, private respondent filed a complaint seeking the redemption of the lot acquired by petitioner, alleging that she was not informed of the sale.
Respondent deposited ₱3,000.00 as the redemption price, invoking her right to legal redemption under Articles 1620 and 1623 of the Civil Code.
Petitioner countered that the right of redemption was extinguished due to the prior executed extrajudicial partition that effectively ended any co-ownership.

The trial court, after partial stipulation of facts and review of the submissions, ruled on December 15, 1975, that respondent—as a co-owner—was entitled to exercise the right of redemption.
The trial court ordered petitioner to resell the property to respondent for the stipulated sum and denied litigation expenses, attorney’s fees, and other costs.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on January 12, 1976, which was denied, leading to the present petition for review.

Respondent later argued that even if Articles 1620 and 1623 were deemed inapplicable, she could still redeem the property as an adjoining owner under Article 1622, citing the urban nature and small size of the lot.
Respondent also raised a procedural argument regarding the delayed filing of the record on appeal, asserting that this delay should result in the dismissal of the appeal.

Whether the right of legal redemption under Articles 1620 and 1623 of the Civil Code remains available after an extrajudicial partition has effectively ended co-ownership.

Whether the fact that the inherited property had already been partitioned and that each co-heir’s share had been determined nullifies the ability of any one co-owner to redeem the property.

Whether respondent, as an adjoining owner, could invoke Article 1622 to exercise a right of preemption despite the lack of elements required by that provision.

Specifically, whether respondent adequately demonstrated that the property was about to be resold or that its resale had been perfected.

Whether the delay in the filing of the record on appeal—alleged to have occurred nearly one year and eight months after its approval—justifies the dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds.