Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48457)
Facts:
Petitioner Perla Hernandez bought a 46.40 square meter lot in Baleno, Masbate from Sancho Manlapaz for P3,000 after an extrajudicial partition of the deceased Crispulo Manlapaz and Antonia Villanueva’s estate on December 30, 1974; private respondent Ernesta Manlapaz-Valdemoro owned an adjacent portion and purchased it on April 8, 1975. On April 29, 1975 private respondent sued to redeem the lot, depositing P3,000; the Court of First Instance of Masbate, Branch II ruled on December 15, 1975 that she had a right of legal redemption under Art. 1620 and Art. 1623 of the Civil Code; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied and she brought this petition.
Issues:
- Did private respondent have a right of legal redemption under Art. 1620 and Art. 1623 despite the prior extrajudicial partition?
- Could private respondent redeem as an adjoining owner under Art. 1622?
- Did the delayed receipt of the record on appeal mandate dismissal under Rule 46, Sec. 3?
Ruling:
The petition was GRANTED and the decision of the court a quo was REVERSED. The Court held that private respondent had no right of legal redemption under Art. 1620 and Art. 1623 because co-ownership had ceased by partition. The Court also held that Art. 1622 did not apply because private respondent failed to allege or prove that the lot was about to be resold or that resale had been perfected. The Court found the delayed transmission of the record nonfatal.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that the right of legal redemption in Art. 1620 springs from true co-ownership as defined by Art. 484 of the Civil Code, which requires an undivided and indeterminate share; an extrajudicial partition that identifies and localizes portions terminates co-ownership and thus extinguishes the redemption right, consistent with De la Cruz v. Cruz, Caro v. Court of Appeals, Umengan v. Butacan, and Salatandol v. Retes. With respect to Art. 1622, the Court applied Soriente v. Court of Appeals and De Santos v. City of Manila to require allegation and proof that the land was about to be resold or that resale had been perfected, which was lacking here. The Court treated Rule 46, Sec. 3 as directory and declined to dismiss the appeal on the delayed filing in deference to substantial justice, citing Fonseca v. Court of Appeals.
Doctrine:
- The right of legal redemption under Art. 1620 exists only while true co-ownership of an undivided thing continues.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)