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 in 1973, resulting in separate titles: Del Rosario received Lot No. 2854-A, and Bansil received the adjacent Lot No. 2854-B. In 1976, Bansil sold his lot to respondent Alejandra Sanchez for P1,500.00 without first offering it to Del Rosario, his adjoining landowner.
Del Rosario filed a complaint for annulment of the sale and reconveyance, invoking a right of legal pre-emption. He deposited P1,500.00 with the court. Respondents countered that no law grants such a pre-emptive right to adjoining owners and alleged that, out of respect, they had previously offered the property to Del Rosario and other relatives, who refused due to financial incapacity. They further argued that Del Rosario’s own property had been advertised for sale.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner has no right of pre-emption under either provision. Under Article 1622, an adjoining owner of urban land has a right of legal redemption 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. As correctly found by the trial court, neither requisite exists here. The 86-square-meter lot is not too small for practical use, as evidenced by residential houses built on similarly sized adjacent lots, including one owned by the petitioner himself. Furthermore, the lot was not acquired for speculation but through inheritance.
Neither does Article 1623 on redemption among co-owners apply. That right presupposes the existence of a co-ownership. In this case, the inherited property had already been extrajudicially partitioned, subdivided into specific lots, and titles were issued individually to the heirs. This partition terminated the co-ownership. Consequently, no right of redemption among co-owners survives after the property has been partitioned and absolute titles have been issued. The Court of First Instance’s decision dismissing the complaint was affirmed.