Scribd
Upload
43 views5 pages

29.) Basa vs. Aguilar

The document discusses a legal case regarding the right of redemption for co-owners of property under Article 1620 of the Civil Code. The court case involved co-owners petitioning to exercise their right of redemption after another co-owner sold their share of the property to a third party. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioners and their right to redemption, finding that denying this right would undermine the purpose of minimizing co-ownership.

Uploaded by

CAJES, NICOLE RAYNE R.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views5 pages

29.) Basa vs. Aguilar

The document discusses a legal case regarding the right of redemption for co-owners of property under Article 1620 of the Civil Code. The court case involved co-owners petitioning to exercise their right of redemption after another co-owner sold their share of the property to a third party. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioners and their right to redemption, finding that denying this right would undermine the purpose of minimizing co-ownership.

Uploaded by

CAJES, NICOLE RAYNE R.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Basa vs. Aguilar

*
No. L-30994. September 30, 1982.

OLIMPIA BASA, ARSENIO BASA, NEMESIO BASA,


RICARDO BASA, ATANACIA BASA, JULIANA BASA, and
FELICIANO BASA, petitioners, vs. HON. ANDRES C. AGUILAR,
Judge Presiding Branch II of the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga, GENARO PUYAT, BRIGIDA MESINA, PRIMO
TIONGSON, and MACARIA PUYAT, respondents.

Civil Law; Redemption; Legal redemption, scope and nature of; Legal
redemption intended to minimize co-ownership; Words and phrases; "Third
person," meaning of.—Legal redemption is in the nature of a privilege
created by law partly for reasons of public policy and partly for the benefit
and convenience of the redemptioner, to afford him a way out of what might
be a disagreeable or inconvenient association into which he has been thrust.
(10 Manresa, 4th Ed., 317.) It is intended to minimize co-ownership. The
law grants a co-owner the exercise of the said right of redemption when the
shares of the other owners are sold to "a third person." A third person,
within the meaning of this Article, is anyone who is not a co-owner.
(Sentencia of February 7, 1944 as cited in Tolentino, Comments on the Civil
Code, Vol. V, p. 160.)

Same; Same; Effect of denial of right of redemption to co-owners


whose shares over properties were sold to a third person.—Private

________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

129

VOL. 117, SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 129

Basa vs. Aguilar


respondent Primo Tiongson is definitely not a co-owner of the land in
question. He is not even an heir of private respondents Genaro Puyat and
Brigida Mesina, nor included in the "family relations" of the said spouses as
defined in Article 217 of the Civil Code. The circumstance that he is
married to Macaria Puyat, a daughter of Genaro Puyat and Brigida Mesina,
is of no moment. The conveyance to the Tiongson spouses was by onerous
title, made during the lifetime of Genaro Puyat and Brigida Mesina. The
alleged inchoate right of succession from Genaro Puyat and Brigida Mesina,
which pertained only to Macaria Puyat, is thus out of the question. To deny
to the petitioners the right of redemption recognized in Article 1620 of the
Civil Code is to defeat the purpose of minimizing co-ownership and to
contravene the public policy in this regard. Moreover, it would result in
disallowing the petitioners a way out of what, in the words of Manresa,"
might be a disagreeable or inconvenient association into which they have
been thrust."

APPEAL by certiorari to review the decision of the Court of First


Instance of Pampanga.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

VASQUEZ, J.:

This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of First


Instance of Pampanga in Civil Case No. 2513, entitled "Olimpia
Basa, et al., Plaintiffs, versus Genaro Puyat, et al., Defendants."
The seven (7) petitioners are owners co-pro-indiviso of an
undivided ONE-HALF (1/2) share of a parcel of land located in
Barrio San Mateo, Arayat, Pampanga, with an area of 32,383 square
meters, more or less. Private respondents Genaro Puyat and Brigida
Mesina were the owners of the other undivided half of the same
parcel of land.
On March 6, 1964, Genaro Puyat, with the marital consent of
Brigida Mesina, sold his ONE-HALF (1/2) share of the parcel of
land in question for the price of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00)
PESOS in favor of private respondents Primo Tiongson and Macaria
Puyat. Primo Tiongson is a son-in-law of Genaro Puyat who is
married to Macaria Puyat, a daughter of Genaro Puyat.

130

130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Basa vs. Aguilar

Seven (7) days later, on or March 13, 1964, the herein petitioners
filed Civil Case No. 2513, praying that they be allowed to exercise
the right of redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code, for
which purpose they deposited with the court the sum of ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P1000.00) as redemption money.
The trial court rendered the judgment dismissing the case. It
ruled that the petitioners are not entitled to exercise the right of
redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code, reasoning out as
follows:

"There is nothing repugnant, from the point of view of public policy, for
parents to sell to their children. It could not, therefore, have been intended
by the framers of the Civil Code of the Philippines to include within the
purview of the term 'third person' the children of a co-owner of a thing. For
after all, these children have an inchoate right to succession to the same
property. To hold otherwise, is to stretch the meaning of the law into
ludicrious (sic) situations."

The logic of His Honor, the trial judge, carries more sentiment than
law. It disregards the express letter of the law invoked by the
petitioners and ignores the philosophy of the same. Article 1620 of
the Civil Code reads:

"ART. 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in


case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any of them, are sold to a
third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the
redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of redemption,
they may only do so in proportion to the share they may respectively have in
the thing owned in common."

Legal redemption is in the nature of a privilege created by law partly


for reasons of public policy and partly for the benefit and
convenience of the redemptioner, to afford him a way out of what
might be a disagreeable or inconvenient association into which he
has been thrust. (10 Manresa, 4th Ed., 317.) It is intended to
minimize co-ownership. The law grants a co-owner the exercise of
the said right of redemption when the shares of the other owners are
sold to "a third person." A third person, within the meaning of this
Article, is

131

VOL. 117, SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 131


Basa vs. Aguilar

anyone who is not a co-owner. (Sentencia of February 7, 1944 as


cited in Tolentino, Comments on the Civil Code, Vol. V, p. 160.)
Private respondent Primo Tiongson is definitely not a co-owner
of the land in question. He is not even an heir of private respondents
Genaro Puyat and Brigida Mesina, nor included in the "family
relations" of the said spouses as defined in Article 217 of the Civil
Code. The circumstance that he is married to Macaria Puyat, a
daughter of Genaro Puyat and Brigida Mesina, is of no moment. The
conveyance to the Tiongson spouses was by onerous title, made
during the lifetime of Genaro Puyat and Brigida Mesina. The alleged
inchoate right of succession from Genaro Puyat and Brigida Mesina,
which pertained only to Macaria Puyat, is thus out of the question.
To deny to the petitioners the right of redemption recognized in
Article 1620 of the Civil Code is to defeat the purpose of
minimizing co-ownership and to contravene the public policy in this
regard. Moreover, it would result in disallowing the petitioners a
way out of what, in the words of Manresa," might be a disagreeable
or inconvenient association into which they have been thrust."
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby
REVERSED, and in lieu thereof, a new one is rendered declaring
the petitioners to be entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption
under Article 1620 of the Civil Code with respect to the ONE-HALF
(1/2) share sold by private respondent Genaro Puyat and Brigida
Mesina in favor of their co-respondents Primo Tiongson and
Macaria Puyat. The private respondents shall pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.

          Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera,


Plana, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.

Notes.—An owner of urban land may not redeem an adjoining


urban property where he does not allege in his complaint, much less
prove at the trial, that the latter is so small and so

132

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


People vs. Bello

situated that a major portion thereof cannot be used for any practical
purpose within a reasonable time, having been sought merely for
speculation. (Ortega vs. Orcine, 38 SCRA 276.)
The nature of the conventional and the legal rights of redemption
is identical, except for the source of the right. (Alarcon vs. Esteva,
16 SCRA 123.)
The purchaser of an undivided interest in a property is charged
with notice that its acquisition is subject to redemption by any other
co-owner within the statutory 30-day period. (Butte vs. Manuel Uy
& Sons, Inc., 4 SCRA 964.)

——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like