G.R. No. 108580 December 29, 1998
CLARITA P. HERMOSO and VICTORIA P. HERMOSO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES CEFERINO C. PALAGANAS, AZUCENA R. PALAGANAS and DR. AMANDA C. PALAGANAS, respondents.

FACTS

Emilio Hermoso died in 1957, leaving his wife Clarita and four children as heirs to his undivided one-third portion of a parcel of land in Meycauayan, Bulacan. The whole land was originally owned by Agrifina Francia and transmitted to her three children, including Emilio. Consolacion Hermoso-Cruz eventually owned two-thirds, and the Heirs of Emilio Hermoso owned one-third. On May 29, 1974, the Heirs of Emilio Hermoso executed a notarized “Agreement” outlining a scheme for the future partition of properties, specifying the order of adjacent shares. In 1979, heirs Agustinito and Danilo Hermoso (Hermoso brothers) offered to sell their respective shares to Benjamin Palaganas, acting for his siblings Ceferino and Amanda Palaganas. An initial transaction did not materialize after Clarita offered to redeem the shares. In October 1979, the Hermoso brothers again offered to sell, assuring the Palaganases that their mother Clarita had consented and that their sister Victoria would agree to an exchange of shares. Relying on these assurances, the parties executed a “Deed of Absolute Sale” on January 30, 1980. The Hermoso brothers received payments totaling P401,500.00. Petitioners Clarita and Victoria Hermoso allegedly learned of the sale only between May 1983 and January 1984. They attempted to negotiate for redemption, but the Palaganases refused. Consequently, petitioners filed a complaint for legal redemption before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering redemption. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint. Petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioners could still exercise the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code, which hinges on whether the co-ownership over the property still existed at the time of the sale or had been terminated by partition.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATED the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The Court held that the “Agreement” dated May 29, 1974 was not a deed of partition but merely a “scheme” or “project of partition” on how to divide the property in the future. It was temporary and subject to change. The property remained undivided, and the co-ownership persisted. The sale by the Hermoso brothers involved specific, determinate portions of the co-owned property. Under Article 1620, a co-owner may exercise the right of legal redemption within thirty days from notice in writing by the vendor. The Court found that the petitioners were not notified in writing of the sale by the vendors (the Hermoso brothers). The Palaganases were in bad faith, as they were aware of the previous redemption attempt by Clarita and the lack of consent from Victoria, yet proceeded with the purchase. Therefore, the petitioners could validly exercise their right of legal redemption.