NOTES

SLIDE 3: No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what

resolutions of the majority should be considered seriously
prejudicial to the interest of the co-owners as to justify the courts
intervention. The following examples have been given

SLIDE 10: As long as they are tenants in common, neither Jack nor
Peter will be able to: keep each other off any part of the property,
i.e., neither of them can claim to own any certain part of the
property;
o build improvements (e.g., a cabin, a road) on the property
without the other getting 1/2 the credit (one co-tenant cannot
compel another to contribute towards improvements made
without consent)
o lease any part of the property without having to account to the
other for rent received; or,
o sell the entire property without the other's consent.
o Either Jack or Peter can sell his 1/2 interest in Blackacre
without the other's consent. As a practical matter, this means
that either of them could get stuck co-owning a property with
a total stranger! (The flipside of this coin, though, is that
anybody who wants to buy Jack or Peter's 1/2 interest will have
to live with a stranger for a co-tenant. Who wants that?) The
effect of all of this uncertainty is to make both Jack and Peter's
individual 1/2 interests less valuable than 1/2 of what the
entire property would be worth if it were sold to a single buyer.

SLIDE 16: Reasonable price. The law requires the redemptioner to

pay only a reasonable price if the price of the alienation is grossly
excessive. This is to prevent collusion between the buyer and the
selling co-owner. The right of the redemptioner to pay a reasonable
price under Article 1620 does not excuse him from the duty to make
proper tender of the price that can be honestly deemed reasonable
under the circumstances, without prejudice to final arbitration by
the courts, nor does it authorize said redemptioner to demand that
the vendee accept payment by installments.
Under the Civil Code, the instances of legal redemption are found in
Articles 1620, 1621, 1622, 1634 (infra.), and 1088. Article 1088
provides: Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a
stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be
subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the
price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month
from the time they were notified in writing of the sale of the
vendor. Article 1088 refers to sale of hereditary rights, and not to
specific properties, for the payment of the debts of the decedents
estate. In the administration and liquidation of the estate of a
deceased person, sales ordered by the probate court for payment of

debts are final and not subject to legal redemption. Unlike in

ordinary execution sales, there is no legal provision allowing
redemption in the sale of property for the payment of debts of a
deceased person. (Plan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 135 SCRA
270 [1985].)

REPORT QUESTIONS
1. Is the right to as for partition waivable? Yes
2. Under 1620,

The sale was made by the father, a co-owner, to the wife of one of his
children, the other co-owners.
Facts: Spouses H and W owned a small lot. After W died intestate, H sold onehalf of the lot to T, wife of S, Hs son. T refused to allow redemption by X, etc.,
other children of H and W. The lower court disallowed redemption because it
considered T, the vendee, a co-heir, being married to S, and held the
conveyance valid since it was in favor of the conjugal partnership of T and S
in the absence of any statement that the property was paraphernal in
character.
Issue: Should X, etc. be allowed to exercise their right to redeem the property
sold to T?
Held: Yes. A co-ownership exists. Within the meaning of Article 1620, the term
third person or stranger refers to all persons who are not heirs in
succession, and by heirs are meant only those who are called either by will or
the law to succeed the deceased and who actually succeeds. In short, a third
person is anyone who is not a co-owner. (Villanueva vs. Florendo,139 SCRA
329 [1985]; see dissenting opinion.)
Dissent: JUSTICE AQUINO
o Note that the "third person" in article 1620 is extrano (stranger) in the
Spanish original of article 1522, not "tercero" which is the Spanish for
"third person".
o

Manresa, commenting on article 1067, now article 1088, observes, that

"el marido de una heredera" is a stranger (7 Codigo Civil Espanol, 7th
Ed., 1955, p. 812).

I am of the opinion that no right of redemption exists in favor of

Erlinda's sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law because the sale was made
to the (conjugal partnership of Erlinda and Concepcion), a co-owner.
The sale made Concepcion and Erlinda the co-owners of 6/10 or 3/5 of
the 165-square- meter lot. We have to be realistic and pragmatic in this
case.

Even now, Macario could himself revoke or rectify the sale and resell
his share to Concepcion.

Castan Tobenas says that an "extrano" is a person who is not a coowner. Literally, Erlinda is not a co-owner but the unblinkable fact is
that she is married to a co-owner and the portion sold became her
conjugal property and that of her husband. They in turn are co-owners
of that conjugal 1/2 portion.

The view that Erlinda is not a third person with respect to the coownership is supported by the ruling in Saclolo and Pascual vs.
Madlangsakay and Court of Agrarian Relations, 106 Phil. 1038. It was
held in that case:

Under legal principles, by the contract of marriage, a man and woman

enter a joint life, acting, living, and working as one, whether under the
common law or under the civil upon marriage the husband and the
wife become one single, moral, spritual and social being, not only for
purposes of procreation for the purpose of mutual help and protection,
physically, morally and materially. There is between them a full and
complete community existence.

3. Under NCC 1623, what are the required contents of the written notice of sale?
- Notice of the actual perfected sale only
- Notice of the actual execution and delivery of the deed of sale only
- Both
o This is implied from the second sentence of Article 1623. A sale
may not be presented to the register of deeds for registration
unless it be in the form of a duly executed public instrument.
Moreover, the law prefers that all the terms and conditions of the
sale should be definite and in writing. (see Doromal vs. Court of
Appeals, 66 SCRA 575 [1975].) Note that Article 1623 merely
provides that a deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of
Property unless accompanied by an affidavit that a written notice
has been given to all possible redemptioners. It does not state that
by reason of such lack of notice the sale shall become void.
(Fernandez vs. Tarun, 391 SCRA 653 [2002].)

PERA O BAYONG QUESTIONS

UNDER 1621
Under 1621, who is the party who has the burden of proving existence of barrier
between land sought to be redeemed and land of one who wants to redeem.
(Maturan v. Gulas)
a. The adjoining owner who is seeing redemption

b. The owner of the land sought to be redeemed

c. The court

Can an adjacent owner exercise his right of legal redemption under NCC 1621
against another adjacent owner? (Del Pilar v. Catindig)
a. It depends on the circumstances surrounding each case.
b. Yes. The term grantee includes everyone, including other adjacent owners.
c. No. The right can only be exercised against a stranger.

UNDER 1622
Having discovered that part of her rest house was erected on an adjoining lot of 45
square meters, A wanted to exercise her right of pre-emption but the lot owner
asked for an unconscionable sum of P15,000. Later, the 45 square meter lot was
sold to another adjoining owner, B, for only P3,500. Who has a better right to the
lot, A or B? (Legazpi v. CA)
a. A
b. B
c. None of the above
UNDER 1623
Can the vendee be the one to send/disseminate the required written notice to the
other co-owners?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. It depends
- In Etcuban vs. Court of Appeals (48 SCRA 507 [1987].), notice to the coowners of the sale of the share of one of them was given by the vendees
through their counterclaim in the action for legal redemption. Despite the
apparent meaning of Art. 1623, it was held in that case that it was of no
moment that the notice of sale was given not by the vendor but by the
vendees. So long as the [co-owner] is informed in writing of the sale and
the particulars thereof, the 30 days for redemption start running, and the
redemptioner has no cause to complain, so it was held. The contrary
doctrine of Butte vs. Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc. was thus overruled sub
silencio. However, in the later case of Salatandol vs. Retes, decided a year
after the Etcuban case, the Court expressly affirmed the ruling in Butte
that the notice required by Art. 1623 must be given by the vendor. In
Salatandol, the notice given to the redemptioner by the Register of Deeds
of the province where the subject land was situated was held to be
insufficient.
- IT CAN BE DISPENSED WITH HOWEVER (in the case where the vendee
lives in the same area as the co-owners, Alonzo v. IAC)