G.R. No. L-26575 - Dimasacat vs. Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals recognized the petitioners as "successors in interest of the mortgage debtor" but limited their right of redemption to the specific portions sold to them by Lagdameo.
The petitioners argued that they should be entitled to redeem the entire property based on the precedent set in Magno vs. Viola.
However, the Magno case did not address the issue of whether co-owners could compel redemption of the whole property; it focused on the rights of a lawyer with an interest in a property.
The ruling clarified that a co-owner cannot redeem the entire property unless they have a clear and registered interest in it.

The decision in Magno emphasized that a co-tenant may redeem the entire joint estate but must do so for the benefit of all co-tenants.
In this case, the petitioners only acquired small portions of the land, which were not registered or surveyed, limiting their rights to a personal claim of co-ownership.
The lack of registration and precise boundaries meant that even if the petitioners redeemed the entire property, Lagdameo could still assert rights over the portions not included in the unregistered deeds of sale.
The petitioners acknowledged this limitation in their complaint, seeking a declaration of co-ownership only over the portions they had purchased.

Lagdameo repurchased the land from the Philippine National Bank while the case was pending, which affected the petitioners' rights.
The repurchase was executed under a deed of sale that included conditions, such as a notice of lis pendens.
Since Lagdameo regained full title to the property, the petitioners' rights were limited to the consummation of their original sales with him.
The court concluded that the petitioners are co-owners only to the extent of the interest conveyed to them by Lagdameo, with the right to parti...continue reading