Doromal v CA, 66 SCRA 575

FACTS: A parcel of land in Iloilo were co-owned by 7 siblings all surnamed Horilleno. 5
of the siblings gave a SPA to their niece Mary Jimenez, who succeeded her father as a
co-owner, for the sale of the land to father and son Doromal. One of the co-owner,
herein petitioner, Filomena Javellana however did not gave her consent to the sale even
though her siblings executed a SPA for her signature. The co-owners went on with the
sale of 6/7 part of the land and a new title for the Doromals were issued. Respondent
offered to repurchase the land for 30K as stated in the deed of sale but petitioners
declined invoking lapse in time for the right of repurchase. Petitioner also contend that
the 30K price was only placed in the deed of sale to minimize payment of fees and
taxes and as such, respondent should pay the real price paid which was P115, 250.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the period to repurchase of petitioner has already lapsed.

RULING: Period of repurchase has not yet lapsed because the respondent was not
notified of the sale. The 30-day period for the right of repurchase starts only after actual
notice not only of a perfected sale but of actual execution and delivery of the deed of
sale.The letter sent to the respondent by the other co-owners cannot be considered as
actual notice because the letter was only to inform her of the intention to sell the
property but not its actual sale. As such, the 30-day period has not yet commenced and
the respondent can still exercise his right to repurchase.The respondent should also pay
only the 30K stipulated in the deed of sale because a redemptioner’s right is to be
subrogated by the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract.