In property law, the right of redemption allows a co-owner to buy back a share of property when it’s sold to someone outside the co-ownership. However, this right doesn’t apply if the sale is to another co-owner, as it doesn’t introduce a new party into the ownership. The Supreme Court has clarified that the right of redemption exists to minimize co-ownership by preventing shares from falling into the hands of outsiders, not to regulate transactions among existing co-owners. This ruling ensures that property rights remain stable among those already invested in the shared ownership.
Dividing the Pond: When Does a Co-owner Have the Right to Redeem Property?
This case, Oscar C. Fernandez, Gil C. Fernandez And Armando C. Fernandez vs. Spouses Carlos And Narcisa Tarun, revolves around a fishpond co-owned by several individuals. The central legal question is whether the petitioners, as heirs of one of the original co-owners, have the right to redeem portions of the fishpond that were sold to the respondents. The petitioners argued that they were not properly notified of the sale and that the sale should be considered an equitable mortgage due to the inadequacy of the price.
The facts of the case are as follows: An 8,209-square meter fishpond was originally co-owned by several Fernandez siblings and their uncle. Over time, Antonio and Demetria Fernandez sold their shares to Spouses Carlos and Narcisa Tarun. Later, the co-owners executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, recognizing the sale to the Taruns and effectively making them co-owners of the fishpond. The Taruns paid the realty taxes on their portion, but the Fernandezes remained in possession of the entire fishpond. When the Taruns sought partition and a share of the income, the Fernandezes refused, leading to a legal battle.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the Fernandezes, stating they had the right to redeem the property. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, holding that the Fernandezes were not entitled to redeem the property. The CA reasoned that Angel Fernandez, the predecessor of the petitioners, was the co-owner at the time of the sale and did not exercise his right to redeem. Additionally, the CA considered the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition as substantial compliance with the notice requirement. The Supreme Court (SC) agreed with the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court addressed several key issues in this case, most notably the right to legal redemption. The petitioners argued that the sale to the respondents was void because they were not notified, thus invoking Articles 1620, 1621, and 1623 of the Civil Code, which pertain to the right of redemption for co-owners and adjoining landowners. However, the Court clarified that the right of redemption under Article 1620 is applicable only when a share of co-owned property is sold to a third person—someone who is not already a co-owner.
“Article 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.”
In this instance, the respondents were already considered co-owners by the time the petitioners inherited their shares. Therefore, the sale did not introduce a new party into the co-ownership. The Supreme Court cited Basa v. Aguilar, emphasizing that legal redemption is a privilege intended to minimize co-ownership by preventing shares from falling into the hands of outsiders.
“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 [an] 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.’”
The petitioners also argued that the sale was void due to the lack of written notice, as required under Article 1623 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court acknowledged the need for notice but noted that jurisprudence has varying interpretations of its form. While a written notice is generally required, the Court has previously held that actual knowledge of the sale can suffice. In this case, the execution and signing of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Exchange of Shares served as adequate notice to Angel Fernandez, the petitioners’ predecessor. From that point, he had 30 days to exercise his right of redemption, which he did not do, thereby waiving the right.
Another issue raised by the petitioners was that the sale should be considered an equitable mortgage due to the inadequacy of the price and the fact that the vendors remained in possession of the land. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that while these circumstances can indicate an equitable mortgage under Article 1602 of the Civil Code, the original sellers were not claiming the sale was an equitable mortgage. Moreover, the petitioners failed to establish the fair market value of the property at the time of the sale, making it impossible to conclude that the price was grossly inadequate. For a sale to be voided due to price inadequacy, it must be “grossly inadequate or shocking to the conscience.”
Regarding the validity of the extrajudicial partition, the petitioners argued that it was lopsided and iniquitous. The Court countered that parties are generally bound by agreements they enter into with full awareness and proper formalities, regardless of whether the agreement turns out to be unfavorable. Furthermore, the petitioners, as heirs, were bound by the extrajudicial partition. The Court also found that the partition was, in fact, fair and equitable, as Angel Fernandez had traded his share in one fishpond for the entire other fishpond, except for the portion already sold to the respondents, making his ownership more contiguous and compact.
Lastly, the petitioners claimed damages and attorney’s fees, which the Court denied. The Court reasoned that the respondents’ action for partition was based on a valid right as co-owners and was not an unfounded suit. Overall, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioners’ claims, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The central issue was whether the petitioners, as heirs of a co-owner, had the right to redeem property sold to the respondents, who were also co-owners. The court determined that the right of redemption only applies when property is sold to a third party, not to existing co-owners. |
| When does the right of legal redemption apply? | The right of legal redemption applies when a co-owner’s share is sold to a third party, meaning someone who is not already a co-owner. This right aims to minimize co-ownership by preventing shares from falling into the hands of outsiders. |
| What constitutes sufficient notice of a sale to co-owners? | While the law generally requires written notice, the execution and signing of a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition can serve as sufficient notice. This is especially true when the deed acknowledges the sale and includes the co-owners as parties. |
| What makes a sale an equitable mortgage? | A sale can be considered an equitable mortgage if the price is unusually inadequate and the seller remains in possession of the property. However, these factors alone are not sufficient; the intent to secure a debt through a mortgage must also be present. |
| How does the court view extrajudicial partitions? | The court generally upholds extrajudicial partitions when they are entered into freely and with full knowledge of the consequences. Parties are bound by these agreements, and courts will not relieve them from unwise decisions. |
| Can heirs challenge agreements made by their predecessors? | Heirs are generally bound by the agreements made by their predecessors, including extrajudicial partitions and waivers of rights. They cannot adopt a stance contrary to that taken by their predecessors. |
| What is required to void a sale based on price inadequacy? | To void a sale based on price inadequacy, the price must be grossly inadequate or shocking to the conscience. The party challenging the sale must also establish the fair market value of the property at the time of the sale. |
| Are co-owners entitled to damages for filing a partition suit? | Co-owners are not entitled to damages for filing a partition suit if the action is based on a valid right as co-owners. The right to demand partition is a legal right, and exercising that right does not constitute an unfounded suit. |
This case clarifies the limitations of the right to legal redemption among co-owners, reinforcing the principle that such rights are primarily intended to prevent the entry of third parties into co-ownership arrangements. It also highlights the importance of due diligence and timely action in exercising legal rights, as well as the binding nature of agreements on subsequent heirs.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Oscar C. Fernandez, et al. vs. Spouses Carlos and Narcisa Tarun, G.R. No. 143868, November 14, 2002