G.R. No. 142402 September 20, 2005
Oscar L. Rivera, Petitioner, vs. Serafin Q. Roman, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves the “Kabatkalan” fishpond, a property co-owned by the heirs of spouses Vicente de Lara and Agueda dela Cruz. Petitioner Oscar Rivera is one of the co-heirs. Respondent Serafin Roman initially leased the property from the heirs. Later, in 1983, all co-heirs except Rivera sold their pro-indiviso shares to Roman through separate deeds of absolute sale. Subsequently, an Extrajudicial Partition was executed in 1985, specifying each heir’s aliquot share, and the same co-heirs again sold their now-allotted shares to Roman. Rivera’s share was later levied upon due to a judgment debt, and it was purchased by Roman at a public auction in 1986. Prior to the auction, in August 1986, Rivera filed a complaint for accion publiciana, replevin, legal redemption, and damages against Roman. He alleged that Roman took possession of the entire fishpond by force, intimidation, and stealth in 1983, and that the sales by his co-heirs were void as there was no prior partition of the estate.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioner Oscar Rivera is entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code over the shares of his co-heirs which were sold to respondent Serafin Roman.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal of Rivera’s complaint. The Court held that Rivera failed to validly exercise his right of legal redemption. Article 1088 grants a co-heir the right to be subrogated to the rights of a purchaser of a co-heir’s hereditary share, provided the redemption is exercised within one month from written notice of the sale. The Court found that Rivera received actual knowledge of the sales to Roman as early as 1983, when he was informed by his relatives and even confronted Roman about it. Despite this knowledge, he did not tender payment or formally exercise his right of redemption within the one-month period from such notice. His filing of the complaint in 1986, years after the sales and without prior valid redemption, was untimely. The Court emphasized that the right of legal redemption is not a right of first refusal but a prerogative that must be exercised within the strict, non-extendible period set by law. His failure to do so within the reglementary period rendered the sales to Roman final and binding. Consequently, his claims for recovery of possession and damages, which were predicated on an invalid exercise of redemption, necessarily failed.