RIGHT TO PROTEST AGAINST

ACTS OF MAJORITY WHICH

ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE
MINORITY

NCC 492(3)

Should there be no majority,

or should the resolution of the
majority be seriously prejudicial
to those interested in the
property owned in common, the
court, at the instance of an
interested party, shall order such
measures as it may deem proper,
including the appointment of an
administrator.

MAJORITY: consists of co-owners who represent the controlling

interests (i.e., at least 51% of the financial interest) in the object
of the co-ownership.

If there is no majority or the resolution of the majority is

seriously prejudicial to the interests of the other co-owners, the
court, at the instance of an interested party, may take such
measures as it may deem proper, including the appointment of
an administrator.

EXAMPLES OF ACTS CONSIDERED TO BE PREJUDICIAL (taken

from De Leon)
When the resolution calls for a substantial change of
the thing or of the use to which the property owned in common
has been intended in accordance with the previous
agreement, or in the absence of agreement, the nature of the
thing;

When the resolution authorizes leases, loans, and

other contracts without the necessary security, thereby exposing
the property to serious danger to the prejudice of the
minority co-owners; and
When the resolution upholds the continued employment
of an administrator who is guilty of fraud or negligence,
etc. in his management.

RIGHT TO ASK FOR

PARTITION

No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the coownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time
the partition of the thing owned in common,
insofar as his share is concerned. (NCC 494 [1])
Partition is the division between two or more persons of real
or personal property which they own in common so that each
may enjoy and possess his sole estate to the exclusion of and
without interference from the others.

No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the coownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time
the partition of the thing owned in common,
insofar as his share is concerned. (NCC 494 [1])
The partition is merely a necessary incident of the co-ownership,
and absent any evidence to the contrary, the partition is
presumed to have been done in good faith. (City of Mandaluyong v.
Aguilar, 142 SCAD 350, 350 SCRA 487 [2001].)

No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the coownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time
the partition of the thing owned in common,
insofar as his share is concerned. (NCC 494 [1])
Since partition presupposes that the thing to be divided is
owned in common and it is presumed beforehand that the
parties thereto admit the fact of co-ownership, it is immaterial
in whose name the property is declared for taxation purposes.
(Villamor v. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 574 [1988].)
A court cannot properly order the partition of a property
without first making a finding that co-ownership exists.

WHY DOES THE LAW ALLOW THIS?

The policy of the law is not to favor co-ownership because
it is not conducive to the development of the community
property particularly where it involves real estate.

WHEN CAN A CO-OWNER EXERCISE

SUCH RIGHT?
Article 494 grants to each co-owner the right to demand at
any time partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as
his share is concerned for no co-owner shall be obliged to
remain in the co-ownership.

WHEN CAN A CO-OWNER EXERCISE

SUCH RIGHT?
IMPLICATION
THE ACTION TO DEMAND PARTITION IS IMPRESCRIPTIBLE OR
CANNOT BE BARRED BY LACHES, ABSENT A CLEAR
REPUDIATION OF THE CO-OWNERSHIP BY A CO-OWNER
CLEARLY COMMUNICATED TO THE OTHER CO-OWNERS. (DEL
BANCO V. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT)

WHEN CAN A CO-OWNER EXERCISE

SUCH RIGHT?
REASON
THE POSSESSION OF THE CO-OWNER IS NOT ADVERSE TO THE
OTHERS.

RIGHT TO

Legal
Redemption

NCC
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. (1522a)

NCC
1620

REQUISITES
1. There must be co-ownership of a
thing
2. There must be alienation of all or
of any of the shares of the other
co-owners
3. The sale must be to a third person
or stranger (Art. 1620.), i.e., a nonco-owner; and
4. The sale must be before partition

LIMITATIONS

By the very nature of the right of legal

redemption, a co-owners right to
redeem is invoked only after the shares
of the other co-owners are sold to a third
party or stranger.
The right of legal redemption is not
granted solely and exclusively to the
original co-owners but applies to those
who subsequently acquire their
respective shares while the community
subsists.
Article 1620 applies only if the coownership still exists.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the law in

establishing the right of legal
redemption between co-owners is to
reduce the number of participants
until the community is done away
with, as being a hindrance to the
development and better
administration of the property.

NCC
1623

The right of legal pre-emption or

redemption shall not be exercised except
within thirty days from the notice in writing
by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor,
as the case may be. The deed of sale shall
not be recorded in the Registry of Property,
unless accompanied by an affidavit of the
vendor that he has given written notice
thereof to all possible redemptioners.
The right of redemption of co-owners
excludes that of adjoining owners. (1524a)

NCC
1623

PERIOD IS NON-EXTENDIBLE; ITS

ABSOLUTE (CABRERA V. VILLANUEVA)
THE THIRDY-DAY PERIOD IS NOT A
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD; RATHER, IT IS A
CONDITION PRECEDENT (CARO V. CA)
THE FUNDAMENTAL POLICY OF THE LAW IS
TO DISCOURAGE THE KEEPING FOR A LONG
TIME OF PROPERTY IN A STATE OF
UNCERTAINTY, BEYOND THE THIRTY-DAY
PERIOD, A SITUATION WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS
UNJUST TO THE PURCHASER AND
PREJUDICIAL TO PUBLIC INTEREST. (IBID.;
MANAOIS VS. ZAMORA, [C.A.] 48 O.G.
5362; DAZA VS. TOMACRUZ, 58 PHIL. 414
[1933]; LIM TUICO VS. CU UNJIENG, 21
PHIL. 493 [1912].)

NCC
1621

The owners of adjoining lands shall

also have the right of redemption when a piece of
rural land, the area of which does not exceed one
hectare, is alienated, unless the grantee does not
own any rural land.
This right is not applicable to adjacent lands which
are separated by brooks, drains, ravines, roads and
other apparent servitudes for the benefit of other
estates.
If two or more adjoining owners desire to exercise
the right of redemption at the same time, the
owner of the adjoining land of smaller area shall
be preferred; and should both lands have the same
area, the one who first requested the redemption.
(1523a)

Rural

The word rural has been defined as

relating to or constituting tenement in
land adopted and used for agricultural or
pastoral purposes. It is one which,
regardless of site, is principally used for
the purpose of obtaining products from
the soil as opposed to urban lands, which
are principally for the purpose of
residence. (Fabia vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 133 SCRA 364 [1984],
citing 3 Castan 124.)

Use of
property a
determining
factor.

De Leon adds that in giving an adjoining

owner the right to redeem a piece of
rural land, the word rural, as used in
Article 1621, must be construed in
consonance with the meaning intended
by the framers of the law. The reason for
the law in question is to foster the
development of agricultural areas by
adjacent owners who may desire the
increase for the improvement of their
own land.

Use of
property a
determining
factor.

In accordance with the foregoing, it

is important to remember that the
use of property for agricultural
purposes is essential in order that
the same may be characterized as
rural land for purposes of legal
redemption under Article 1621.

NCC
1621

REQUISITES
Both the land of the one exercising the right
of redemption and the land sought to be
redeemed must be rural
The lands must be adjacent

There must be an alienation;

The piece of rural land alienated must not
exceed one (1) hectare;
The grantee or vendee must already own
any other rural land; and

The rural land sold must not be separated

by brooks, drains, ravines, roads and other
apparent servitudes from the adjoining lands.

EXAMPLE

In accordance with the foregoing, it

is important to remember that the
use of property for agricultural
purposes is essential in order that
the same may be characterized as
rural land for purposes of legal
redemption under Article 1621.

NCC
1622

Whenever a piece of urban land which is so

small and so situated that a major portion
thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose
within a reasonable time, having been bought
merely for speculation, is about to be re sold,
the owner of any adjoining land has a right of
pre-emption at a reasonable price.
If the re-sale has been perfected, the owner of
the adjoining land shall have a right of
redemption, also at a reasonable price.
When two or more owners of adjoining lands
wish to exercise the right of pre-emption or
redemption, the owner whose intended use of
the land in question appears best justified shall
be preferred. (n)

Urban

Refers to the character of the community

or vicinity in which it is found. In this
sense, even if the land is somehow
dedicated to agriculture, it is still urban in
contemplation of Article 1622, if it is
located within the center of population or
the more or less populated portion of a
city or town. (Ortega vs. Orcine, 38 SCRA
276 [1971].)

To
speculate

To enter into a business transaction or venture

from which the profits or return are conjectural
because the undertaking is outside the ordinary
course of business, to purchase or sell with the
expectation of profiting by anticipated, but
conjectural fluctuations in price. Often in a
somewhat depreciative sense, to engage in a
hazardous business transaction for the chance of
an unusually large profit; as to speculate in
coffee, in sugar, or in bank stock. (Ortega vs.
Orcine, 38 SCRA 276 [1971].)

PURPOSE

The evident purpose of Article

1622 is to discourage speculation in
real estate and the consequent
aggravation of the housing
problems in centers of population.

 NCC 1622 RECOGNIZES TWO RIGHTS

Pre-emption, which has been defined as the act or right of
purchasing before others. (72 C.J.S. 478.) It is exercised before
the sale or resale against the would-be vendor.
Redemption, which is exercised after the sale has been perfected
against the vendee. The recognition of the right of redemption
will result in the rescission of the sale.

 REQUISITES
The one exercising the right must be an adjacent owner

The piece of land sold must be so small and so situated that a

major portion thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose
within a reasonable time
Such urban land was bought by its owner merely for speculation
MUST BE ALLEGED BY THE ADJOINING
OWNER IN HIS COMPLAINT AND PROVED
BY HIM. (Del Rosario vs. Bansil, 149 SCRA
662 [1989].)

 means of, or pertaining to, the

country
rural property is to be determined
from the character of the locality, the
streets, lots, buildings, improvements,
and the market value of the property as
also of the neighboring and surrounding
properties

defined as of, or belonging to, a city or

town

AS TO LOCATION

for agricultural purposes

AS TO PURPOSE

For dwelling, industry or commerce

principally used for residential
purposes

IMPLICATIONS OF COOWNERS RIGHT OVER

HIS IDEAL SHARE

RIGHTS

TO SHARE IN FRUITS AND BENEFITS

TO ALIENATE, MORTGAGE, OR
ENCUMBER AND DISPOSE OF HIS IDEAL
SHARE
TO SUBSTITUTE ANOTHER PERSON IN
THE ENJOYMENT OF THE THING
TO RENOUNCE PART OF HIS INTEREST
TO REIMBURSE NECESSARY EXPENSES
(AS DEFINED BY NCC 546) INCURRED BY
ANOTHER CO-OWNER (NCC 488)

Effects of
transaction
by each coowner

LIMITED TO HIS SHARE IN THE

PARTITION
TRANSFEREE DOES NOT ACQUIRE ANY
SPECIFIC PORTION OF WHOLE
PROPERTY UNTIL PARTITION

CREDITORS OF CO-OWNERS MAY

INTERVENE IN PARTITION OR ATTACK
THE SAME IF PREJUDICIAL (NCC 499),
EXCEPT THAT CREDITORS CANNOT ASK
FOR RESCISSION EVEN IF NOT NOTIFIED
IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD (NCC 497)