G.R. No. 143868 . November 14, 2002.
OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ, GIL C. FERNANDEZ and ARMANDO C. FERNANDEZ, petitioners, vs. Spouses CARLOS and NARCISA TARUN, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves an 8,209-square meter fishpond (Lot No. 2991) originally co-owned by the Fernandez family. On June 4 and 18, 1967, co-owners Antonio Fernandez and Demetria Fernandez sold their respective shares (totaling 1,094.54 square meters) to respondents Spouses Carlos and Narcisa Tarun. These sales were registered and annotated on the title. On November 14, 1969, the co-owners, including Antonio, Santiago, Demetria, and Angel Fernandez, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with exchange of shares. The deed recognized and excluded the 1,094.54-square meter portion already sold to the Tarun spouses. By virtue of this deed, Angel B. Fernandez exchanged his share in another property for the shares of his co-owners in the remaining portion of Lot 2991, making Angel and the Tarun spouses co-owners of the lot, as evidenced by TCT No. 24440. The Tarun spouses paid realty taxes, but Angel Fernandez (and later his heirs, the petitioners) remained in possession of the entire fishpond. After demands for partition were refused, the Tarun spouses filed a suit for partition and damages. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding they were entitled to redeem the property sold. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ordering partition according to the shares in TCT No. 24440.

ISSUE

The primary issue, among others raised, is whether petitioners are entitled to exercise their right of legal redemption under Articles 1620 and 1623 of the Civil Code over the portions of the co-owned property sold to the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court ruled that petitioners are not entitled to redeem the property. The right of legal redemption under Article 1620 is available to a co-owner only when the shares of other co-owners are sold to a third person or stranger to the co-ownership. In this case, at the time petitioners (as heirs of Angel Fernandez) entered the co-ownership by virtue of the extrajudicial partition, the respondents were already co-owners by virtue of the prior sales. Thus, the respondents were not “third persons” within the meaning of the law. Furthermore, the Court held that the execution and signing of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, which recognized the sales to respondents, constituted sufficient notice to the redemptioner (Angel Fernandez) of said sales. The law does not prescribe a specific form for the written notice required under Article 1623. Since Angel Fernandez did not exercise his right of redemption within 30 days from such notice, the right was extinguished. The Court also found no merit in petitioners’ other issues, including the claim that the transaction was an equitable mortgage and that the deed of partition was void.