G.R. No. 51655 November 29, 1989
VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES JULIO BANSIL and JOSEFINA TAMAYO and ALEJANDRA SANCHEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente del Rosario and respondent Julio Bansil are heirs of Pelagia Sanchez. They executed an extrajudicial partition of her estate, resulting in separate titles being issued for their respective shares. Del Rosario received Lot No. 2854-A, while Bansil received the adjacent Lot No. 2854-B. Subsequently, Bansil sold his lot to respondent Alejandra Sanchez without first offering it to del Rosario. Claiming a legal right of pre-emption as an adjoining landowner, del Rosario filed a complaint seeking the annulment of the sale and reconveyance of the property to him. He deposited the purchase price with the court to exercise this purported right. The respondents countered that no such legal right exists for adjoining owners and that, as a matter of courtesy, they had previously offered the property to del Rosario and other relatives, who refused due to financial incapacity.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Vicente del Rosario is entitled to a right of legal pre-emption or redemption over the adjoining lot sold by his co-heir, either as an adjoining owner under Article 1622 of the Civil Code or as a co-owner under Article 1623.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that del Rosario possessed no right of legal pre-emption under the circumstances. The legal logic is twofold. First, concerning Article 1622, which grants a right of redemption to adjoining owners of urban land, the Court reiterated the established doctrine that this right applies only when two specific requisites concur: (1) the portion sold is so small and so situated that it cannot be used for any practical purpose within a reasonable time, and (2) it was bought merely for speculation. The trial court correctly found neither requisite present. The 86-square-meter lot was not impractically small, as evidenced by residential houses built on similarly sized adjacent lots, including one owned by del Rosario himself. Furthermore, the lot was not acquired for speculation but through inheritance. Second, del Rosario could not invoke Article 1623, which grants a right of first refusal to co-owners. That provision applies only while the property remains undivided and the co-ownership subsists. Here, the inherited property had already been partitioned, subdivided, and titled separately among the heirs. This partition terminated the state of co-ownership, extinguishing any pre-emptive rights arising from it. Therefore, the sale by Bansil to Sanchez was valid, and del Rosario’s claim for annulment and reconveyance had no legal basis.