
Right Of Legal Redemption
Category: Sales
Right Of Legal Redemption
In Cabales, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007, a property was the subject of co-ownership. The co-owners sold their undivided shares in 1978 and informed the others, like Nelson, a minor of the same in 1993. He signified his intention to redeem the subject property during a barangay conciliation process but filed an action for legal redemption only in 1995. Can he still exercise the right of redemption? Why?
ANS: No, because he did it beyond the 30-day period from the time he learned about the sale. (Art. 1088 & 1623, NCC; Alonzo v. IAC, L-72873, May 28, 1987, 150 SCRA 259).
To require strict proof of written notice of the sale would be to countenance an obvious false claim of lack of knowledge thereof, thus commending the letter of the law over its purpose, i.e., the notification of redemptioners.
There was sufficient notice of the sale to Nelson. The thirty-day redemption period commenced in 1993, after Nelson sought the barangay conciliation process to redeem his property. By January 12, 1995, when he filed a complaint for legal redemption and damages, it is clear that the thirty-day period had already expired. (Cabales, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007).
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
Popular in BATASnatin:
Right Of Legal Redemption
Category: Sales
Right Of Legal Redemption
In Cabales, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007, a property was the subject of co-ownership. The co-owners sold their undivided shares in 1978 and informed the others, like Nelson, a minor of the same in 1993. He signified his intention to redeem the subject property during a barangay conciliation process but filed an action for legal redemption only in 1995. Can he still exercise the right of redemption? Why?
ANS: No, because he did it beyond the 30-day period from the time he learned about the sale. (Art. 1088 & 1623, NCC; Alonzo v. IAC, L-72873, May 28, 1987, 150 SCRA 259).
To require strict proof of written notice of the sale would be to countenance an obvious false claim of lack of knowledge thereof, thus commending the letter of the law over its purpose, i.e., the notification of redemptioners.
There was sufficient notice of the sale to Nelson. The thirty-day redemption period commenced in 1993, after Nelson sought the barangay conciliation process to redeem his property. By January 12, 1995, when he filed a complaint for legal redemption and damages, it is clear that the thirty-day period had already expired. (Cabales, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007).
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
Popular in BATASnatin:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 6 days, 11 hours ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
Who may be an insur…
Who may be an insurer? A foreign or domestic insurance company may transact business in the Philippines but must first obtain a certificate of authority for that purpose from the Insurance Commissioner who has the discretion to refuse to issue such ...
Read morePresentment where i…
Presentment where instrument is not payable on demand and payable on demand Sec. 71. Presentment where instrument is not payable on demand and where payable on demand. - Where the instrument is not payable on demand, presentment must be mad...
Read moreSTELCO MARKETING V.…
STELCO MARKETING V. CA 210 SCRA 51 FACTS: Petitioner was engaged in the distribution and sale of structiural steel bars. RYL bought on several occasion large quantities of steel bars but the same were never paid for despite several demands by petit...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more

