GR CA 8677; (September, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. C.A.-8677; September 29, 1948
GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RODOLFO A. MEDEL, MARIANO MEDALLA, MILAGROS C. ARANETA, represented by her legal guardian, Lorenzo L. Araneta and JOSE L. JUSTINIANI, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The case involves an action for legal redemption under Articles 1521 and 1522 of the Civil Code. The property in question was originally conjugal property of Guillermo Villasor and Basilisa Camento. After Guillermo’s death, the estate was partitioned, with Basilisa receiving a 6/10 share. In 1926, Basilisa donated her share to her grandchildren, including plaintiff Guillermo P. Villasor, who received a 3/20 undivided interest. The donation was accepted by the legal guardian but was not registered until 1936. In 1931, the legal guardian of three other minor grandchildren (the Jurillas) sold their shares, along with their mother’s share, to defendant Mariano Medalla with court approval. In 1939, after reaching majority, Villasor offered to redeem the Jurilla minors’ shares from Medalla for P12,000. Medalla refused, arguing that Villasor’s right of redemption had expired. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the redemption period had lapsed.
ISSUE
Whether the nine-day period for exercising the right of legal redemption under Article 1524 of the Civil Code runs against a minor co-owner who has a legal guardian.
RULING
No, the right of legal redemption had expired. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. The Court held that the nine-day period prescribed in Article 1524 for exercising legal redemption is a substantive condition of the right itself, not a mere procedural statute of limitations. This period is fixed and peremptory, starting from the inscription of the sale in the Registry or, absent registration, from the redemptioner’s knowledge of the sale. The law makes no exception for minority. The Court reasoned that the right of legal redemption is a privilege created by law for convenience and policy, not a fundamental right, and must be strictly construed. Keeping property in a state of suspense for many years due to a minor’s potential future claim would be unjust to the purchaser and contrary to public policy, as it discourages improvement and investment. The Court distinguished the case from Wenceslao vs. Calimo, noting that here, the plaintiff had a legal guardian who could have exercised the redemption right within the nine-day period. Therefore, Villasor’s offer to redeem nearly nine years after the sale was untimely.
AI Generated by Armztrong.