A+ A A-

Right Of Redemption

Right Of Redemption

If a prospective redemptioner is informed of the sale of a portion of a property subject of co-ownership, he has to exercise the right of legal redemption within 30 days from notice, otherwise, he loses the right. If he was informed in 1993 but filed a complaint for legal redemption in 1995, then, he has lost his right to exercise. 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. (Cabales, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007. Puno, C. J).

If a property subject of co-ownership is sold and is redeemed in its entirety by one of the co-owners, does the redemptioner acquire sole ownership? Why?

ANS: No. A co-owner who redeemed the property in its entirety did not make her the owner of all of it. The property remained in a condition of co-ownership as the redemption did not provide for a mode of terminating a co-ownership. (Paulmitan v. CA, G.R. No. 61584, November 25, 1992, 215 SCRA 867; Adille v. CA, 157 SCRA 455 (1988)). But the one who redeemed had the right to be reimbursed for the redemption price and until reimbursed, holds a lien upon the subject property for the amount due. Necessarily, when one redeemed for others who had then acquired his pro-indiviso share in subject property, it did not vest in her ownership over the pro-indiviso share she redeemed. But he had the right for the amount due until reimbursement. The result is that the heirs retained ownership over their pro-indiviso share. (Cabales, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007).


Related Philippine Law Resources:

Right Of Redemption

Right Of Redemption

If a prospective redemptioner is informed of the sale of a portion of a property subject of co-ownership, he has to exercise the right of legal redemption within 30 days from notice, otherwise, he loses the right. If he was informed in 1993 but filed a complaint for legal redemption in 1995, then, he has lost his right to exercise. 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. (Cabales, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007. Puno, C. J).

If a property subject of co-ownership is sold and is redeemed in its entirety by one of the co-owners, does the redemptioner acquire sole ownership? Why?

ANS: No. A co-owner who redeemed the property in its entirety did not make her the owner of all of it. The property remained in a condition of co-ownership as the redemption did not provide for a mode of terminating a co-ownership. (Paulmitan v. CA, G.R. No. 61584, November 25, 1992, 215 SCRA 867; Adille v. CA, 157 SCRA 455 (1988)). But the one who redeemed had the right to be reimbursed for the redemption price and until reimbursed, holds a lien upon the subject property for the amount due. Necessarily, when one redeemed for others who had then acquired his pro-indiviso share in subject property, it did not vest in her ownership over the pro-indiviso share she redeemed. But he had the right for the amount due until reimbursement. The result is that the heirs retained ownership over their pro-indiviso share. (Cabales, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007).


Related Philippine Law Resources:

BATASnatin The Firm

Lawyers in the Philippines

Latest @ Forums

Popular

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

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 more

Oral 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 more

Article 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 more

Random

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

WHAT IS THE EFFECT …

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY UPON  CRIMINAL LIABILITY?>     As a general rule, pardon by the offended party doesn’t extinguish criminal liability >     Only  civil  liability  is  extinguished  by  express  waiver  of  the offen...

Read more

Solid Homes, Inc., …

INTEREST-LOAN               In Solid Homes, Inc., et al. v. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 74269; Solid Homes, Inc., et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 92137, November 27, 2006, (Tinga, J), there was an action for rescission of a contract due to the failure...

Read more

Obligations of the …

What are the obligations of the captain?   1. Inventory of equipment 2. Keep a copy of Code of Commerce on board 3. Have a log book, freight book, accounting book 4. Conduct a marine survey of vessel before loading 5. Remain on board while loadi...

Read more

Featured

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

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 more

People 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 more

Perfection 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


BATASnatin.com- The Best Philippine Law Library

Login

Sign in with Facebook