SECTION 2.

— Legal Redemption

ART. 1619. Legal redemption is the right to be subrogated, upon the same terms and conditions
stipulated in the contract, in the place of one who acquires a thing by purchase or dation in payment, or
by any other transaction whereby ownership is transmitted by onerous title.

Legal redemption is created by law. Under this Article, it can be exercised against a transferee who gets
the property because of:

(a) purchase, or
(b) dation in payment, or
(c) any other transaction whereby ownership is transmitted by onerous title. (Thus, not in case
of a donation or succession.)

Definition of Terms

 “thing” – the word “thing” is employed without qualification, the right applies to both movable
and immovable property.
 Subrogation - transfers to the person (creditor) subrogated the rights pertaining to another.
(Art. 1303.)

Note:

o Legal redemption may take place not only in purchase or dation in payment but in any
other transfer of ownership by onerous title.
o It cannot take place in barter and in the transmission of property by hereditary title.
o not available where there is only a mortgage or lease.

 Dation in payment or dacion en pago

- the transmission of the ownership of a thing by the debtor to the creditor as the
accepted equivalent of the performance of an obligation. (Art. 1245.)

- The debtor offers another thing to the creditor who accepts it as equivalent of
payment of an outstanding debt.

Basis and nature of right of legal redemption.

 Under the law (Rules of Court, Rule 39, Sec. 30.), the property sold subject to redemption may
be redeemed by the judgment debtor or his successor-in-interest in the whole or any part of the
property. In an extra-judicial foreclosure sale, the mortgagor, his successors-in-interest,
judgment creditor or any person having a lien on the property subsequent to the mortgage, may
redeem the same.

Examples of Legal Redemption

 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.
Reason for the law: To minimize co-ownership.

Right of legal redemption of co-owner.

The right of legal redemption among co-owners presupposed of course, the existence of a co-
ownership. The following are the requisites for the right to exist:

(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, i.e., a non-co-owner; and
(4) The sale must be before partition.

EXAMPLES:

(1) A, B, and C are co-owners of an undivided property valued at P500,000.00. A sells his interest to
D for P200,000.00. B or C may exercise the right of redemption by reimbursing D the price of the
sale. If both B and C redeem the interest sold by A, each of them shall pay P100,000.00 to D,
which is the proportion of their respective shares in the co-ownership. If the price of
P200,000.00 is grossly excessive, the same may be equitably reduced by the court.

(2) The property inherited by A, B, and C, heirs, were mortgaged by X, decedent, during his lifetime,
to D. The redemption of the whole property by C with his own personal funds does not vest in
him sole ownership over said property but will inure to the benefit of all co-owners. In other
words, it will not put an end to the lasting state of co-ownership. Redemption is not a mode of
terminating a co-ownership. (Mardeno vs. Court of Appeals)

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:

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 one-half of the lot to T, wife of
S, H’s 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])

When right cannot be invoked.

(1) Thing owned in common partitioned;

(2) Shares of all co-owners sold;
(3) Thing owned in common had been offered for sale by all co-owners;

 Art. 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.

Reason for the law:

(a) To foster the development of agricultural areas by adjacent owners who may desire the increase
for the improvement of their own land. (Del Pilar v. Catindig, 35 Phil. 263).
(b) Reason for paragraph 2: Here the properties cannot be said to be adjacent. Proof of being non-
adjacent is on grantee. (Maturan v. Gulles, L-6298, Mar. 30, 1964).

Requisites for the exercise of the right under this article:

(1) Both the land of the one exercising the right of redemption and the land sought to be redeemed
must be rural;
(2) The lands must be adjacent;
(3) There must be an alienation;
(4) The piece of rural land alienated must not exceed one (1) hectare;
(5) The grantee or vendee must already own any other rural land; and
(6) The rural land sold must not be separated by brooks, drains, ravines, roads and other apparent
servitudes from the adjoining lands.
The lands mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 1621 are not really adjacent.
When the land exceeds one (1) hectare, the adjacent owners are not given the right of legal
redemption because this may lead to the creation of big landed estates. The right cannot be
exercised against a vendee if he is also an adjacent owner. The last paragraph of Article 1621
refers to a situation where the vendee of a piece of rural land is not an adjoining owner.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

Right of redemption by adjacent owner against vendee who is also an adjacent owner.

Facts: S sold to B, an adjacent owner, a parcel of rural land. B bought the land for the purpose of having
an egress from his land to a road. C, another adjacent owner, seeks to redeem the land sold to B.

Issue: Has C the right to exercise the right of redemption granted to an adjacent owner?

Held: No. The right of redemption of adjacent owners cannot be exercised by any of them among
themselves, but only by them against a stranger, who acquires from any one of them by purchase or
gift, in payment, or by any other title for value, a rural estate of the area fixed by law. (Del Pilar vs.
Catindig, 35 Phil. 263 [1916].)

 Art. 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 resold, 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.

Rights of pre-emption and legal redemption of adjacent owners of urban lands.

Article 1622 recognizes two rights; namely:

(a) Pre-emption, which has been defined as the act or right of purchasing before others. It is
exercised before the sale or resale against the would-be vendor; and
 (b) 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.

Pre-emption and Redemption Distinguished

PRE-EMPTION REDEMPTION

(a) arises before sale (a) arises after sale

(b) no rescission because no sale as yet (b) there can be rescission of the original
exists sale
(c) the action here is directed against (c) the action here is directed against the
prospective seller buyer

Requisites.

(a) The one exercising the right must be an adjacent owner;

(b) 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; and
(c) Such urban land was bought by its owner merely for speculation.

Price. — The price to be paid is a reasonable price.

Preference as between two or more adjacent owners. — In case two or more adjoining owners desire
to exercise the right of legal redemption, the law prefers him whose intended use of the land appears
best justified. (last par.) The determinative factor is the intended use that appears best justified, and not
whether the land was acquired for speculative purposes.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:

Facts: Having discovered that part of her ancestral house was erected on an adjoining lot of 59 square
meters, X wanted to exercise her right of pre-emption but the lot owner asked for the exorbitant sum of
P9,000. Later, the 59 square meter lot was sold to another adjoining owner for only P1,500.

Issue: Who has a better right to the lot, X or the other adjoining owner?

Held: X, because her intended use of the land appears best justified. Her house was occupying the lot
through no fault on her part. (Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA 360 [1976].)

Note: In the above cases, the right of legal redemption was sought to be exercised by an adjoining
owner against the vendee who is also an adjoining owner.

 Art. 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.

Period for exercise of right.

(1) Absolute and non-extendible — The period provided in the above article is absolute. It is
peremptory and non-extendible. (Cabrera vs. Villanueva, 160 SCRA 672 [1988].)
(2) A condition precedent. — The thirty-day period is not a prescriptive period but is more a
requisite or condition precedent to the exercise of the right of legal redemption. (Caro vs. Court
 of Appeals, supra.) It is a period set by law to restrict the right of the payor exercising the right
of legal redemption. It is not one of prescription. (Hermoso vs. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 516
[1999].)

NOTE:

o The 30-day notice in writing referred to in Art. 1623 should be counted from notice, not of the
perfected sale, but of the actual execution and delivery of the document of sale. (Doromal v.
Court of Appeals L-36083, Sep. 5, 1975)

Art. 1623 speaks only of a “notice in writing” without specifying what the notice is all about.

o Co-owners are preferred over adjacent owners. (Par. 2, Art. 1623).

Problem

- A, B, and C are co-owners in equal shares of a one-hectare rural land, the adjoining owner to
which are D and E, the latter owning the smaller area. A donated his share of the land owned in
common to X who is a rural land owner. Upon proper notice of the conveyance, B, C, D, and E
sought to exercise the right of legal redemption over the share conveyed. Who among them, if
any, should be preferred? Why?

ANSWER: While co-owners are preferred over adjoining owners, still in the instant case, not one
will be preferred. As a matter of fact, no right of legal redemption exists because A donated his
share to X. There was no purchase, no dation in payment, no transmission by onerous title. (See
Art. 1619).

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:

Cabrera v. Villanueva (GR 75069, Apr. 15, 1988)

FACTS: Erlinda is a co-owner of a real property. On Mar. 12, 1968, by way of a deed of absolute sale,
Feliciano and Antonio, co-owners of said property, sold their shares pro indiviso to Victoriana. The
following year, 1969, a new transfer certificate of title was issued wherein Victoriana was constituted as
a co-owner pro indiviso of the entire parcel. This was after Feliciano and Antonio had executed a joint
affidavit, dated Apr. 1, 1968, attesting to the fact that they had notified in writing the co-owners of the
property and said co-owners did not and could not offer any objection. In 1980, Victoriana as a new co-
owner proposed to Erlinda the partition of the property in question. The latter did not agree to the
proposal. Instead, she offered to redeem the share of Victoriana. Victoriana refused such proposal.
Hence, Erlinda filed an action for legal redemption. The trial court adjudged in favor of Erlinda ordering
Victoriana to re-sell to the former her pro-indiviso share.

The Court of Appeals held that Erlinda was duly notified in writing and that she failed to exercise her
right of redemption within the period provided by law, and therefore she is barred from redeeming the
property. Affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ––

HELD: The joint affidavit does not amount to that written notice required by law. However, it is a written
affirmation under oath that the required written notice of sale was given to the other co-owner. Against
affiants’ sworn written admission that the required notice of sale was duly served upon their co-owners,
the oral denials should not be given much credence. Said written sworn statement was executed by
them ante litem motam. Since there is no evidence on record as to when the written notice of the sale
referred to in the joint affidavit was given, it can only be assumed that it was made before Apr. 1, 1968,
the date of the joint affidavit. Counting from that date, Erlinda had already lost her right to redeem the
property under Art. 1623, when she made her offer to redeem from Victoriana in her letter dated Oct.
30, 1980.

Furthermore, on Apr. 21, 1969, a new transfer certificate of title was issued, in which it is reflected that
Victoriana is a co-owner of the property. It can be safely assumed that copy of the title reflecting
Victoriana as a co-owner was also issued to Erlinda in 1969. Moreover, Sec. 50 of the Land Registration
Code expressly provides that the registration of the deed is the only operational act to bind or affect the
property. From that time on, Erlinda was already in full and actual knowledge of the fact that Victoriana
had acquired the shares of Antonio and Feliciano. For more than ten years, Erlinda remained
unperturbed by the fact that Victoriana was already registered as a co-owner. It was only several years
later when the value of the property considerably increased that Erlinda asserted her claim to redeem
under Art. 1623.

The receipt of a copy of the transfer certificate of title, indicating Victoriana as one of the co-owners,
may be deemed as service of the written notice required by Art. 1623. The letter of Victoriana informing
Erlinda of the acquisition of a portion of the property is by itself a written notice of the purchase. Since
the 30-day period expired by Oct. 30, 1980 without redemption being exercised, it follows that the right
to redeem has already been lost.