This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-22 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Interpreting this provision, we have enumerated the requisites for the exercise of legal redemption, as follows: (1) there must be co-ownership; (2) one of the co-owners sold his right to a stranger; (3) the sale was made before the partition of the co-owned property; (4) the right of redemption must be exercised by one or more co-owners within a period of thirty days to be counted from the time he or they were notified in writing by the co-owner vendor; and (5) the vendee must be reimbursed the price of the sale.[38] With respect to the written notice, the exception is when a co-owner has actual notice of the sale.[39] | |||||
|
2005-12-16 |
|||||
| Petitioner's contention lacks merit. The old rule is that a written notice of the sale by the vendor to his co-owners is indispensable for the latter to exercise their retracto legal de comuneros.[6] More recently, however, we have relaxed the written notice requirement. Thus, in Si v. Court of Appeals,[7] we ruled that a co-owner with actual notice of the sale is not entitled to a written notice for such would be superfluous. The law does not demand what is unnecessary. | |||||
|
2003-10-08 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 484 of the Civil Code, "there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons." A co-owner of an undivided parcel of land is an "owner of the whole, and over the whole he exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is truly abstract."[15] On the other hand, there is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically described.[16] | |||||