Verdad v.

CA

 Petitioner, Zosima Verdad, is the purchaser of a 248-square meter residential lot located in
Butuan City. Private respondent, Socorro Codero Vda. De Rosales, seeks to exercise a right of
legal redemption over the subject property and traces her title to the late Macaria Atega, her
mother-in-law, who died intestate on 08 March 1956.

 RTC held that the right to redeem has already lapsed. CA reversed.

Issue

1. W/N Socorro has the right to redeem the property, being merely the spouse of David Rosales, a
son of Macaria, and not being a co-heir herself in the intestate estate of Macaria.

2. W/N the right of redemption was timely exercised.

Held

1. Yes. She is a legal heir of her husband, David Rosales, part of whose estate is a share in his
mother's inheritance. David Rosales, incontrovertibly, survived his mother's death. When
Macaria died on 08 March 1956 her estate passed on to her surviving children, among them
David Rosales, who thereupon became co-owners of the property. When David Rosales himself
later died, his own estate, which included his undivided interest over the property inherited
from Macaria, passed on to his widow Socorro and her co-heirs pursuant to the law on
succession. Socorro and herein private respondents, along with the co-heirs of David
Rosales,thereupon became co-owners of the property that originally descended from Macaria.

2. Yes. We hold that the right of redemption was timely exercised by private respondents.
Concededly, no written notice of the sale was given by the Burdeos heirs (vendors) to the co-
owners required under Article 1623 of the Civil Code. The written notice of sale is mandatory.

Ramirez v. Ramirez

 Plaintiff, Jose Maria Ramirez, brought this action against defendants Jose Eugenio Ramirez, Rita
D. Ramirez, Belen T. Ramirez, David Margolies, Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., the Estate of the late
Jose Vivencio Ramirez, represented by its judicial administrator, the Bank of the Philippine
Islands, and Angela M. Butte — hereinafter referred to collectively as defendants — for the
partition of a parcel of land — belonging pro indiviso to both parties, one sixth (1/6) to the
plaintiff and five-sixths (5/6) to the defendants.

 Manuel Uy & Sons Inc. and Butte agreed to the partition while the rest of the defendants
opposed.

 LC granted, hence the appeal.

Issue

 W/N the partition should be granted.

Held

 Yes. The allegation that a physical division of the property will cause "inestimable damage" to
the interest of the co-owners is not supported by evidence. Moreover, the same is predicated
upon the assumption that a real estate suitable for commercial purposes — such as the one
herein sought to be partitioned — is likely to suffer a proportionately great diminution in value
when its area becomes too small. But, then, if plaintiff's share of 260.26 square meters were
segregated from the property in question, there would still remain a lot of 1,301.34 square
meters for appellants herein and Mrs. Butte. A real estate of this size, in the very heart of
Manila, is not, however, inconsequential, in comparison to that of the present property of the
community.