G.R. No. L-10329, December 24, 1915
ARISTON ESTRADA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CIRILA T. REYES, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Ariston Estrada and Cirila T. Reyes were co-owners of a parcel of land in Malate, Manila, along with others. The property was held pro indiviso under Certificate of Title No. 2846. On March 20, 1912, Estrada purchased a one-sixth share from co-owner Luisa del Rosario. Earlier, on March 6, 1907, several co-owners (including Juan N. Aragon and Agustin del Rosario) had contracted to sell their shares to Manuel Calvo, but Calvo died before the sale was completed. Cirila T. Reyes, as administratrix of Calvo’s estate, enforced this contract through court action. On October 29, 1913, pursuant to a final court order, Aragon and Agustin del Rosario sold their combined one-third share to Reyes. The next day, October 30, 1913, Estrada invoked his right of legal redemption under Article 1522 of the Civil Code, offering to reimburse Reyes for the price she paid for the one-third share. Reyes refused and, in turn, sought to redeem Estrada’s one-sixth share for the price he paid. Estrada filed a complaint to compel Reyes to allow redemption, while Reyes filed a cross-complaint seeking to redeem Estrada’s share. The trial court absolved Reyes and ordered Estrada to transfer his share to her. Estrada appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether either Ariston Estrada or Cirila T. Reyes may exercise the right of legal redemption under Article 1522 of the Civil Code against the other, given that both are co-owners of the same property.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed both the complaint and the cross-complaint.

The right of legal redemption under Article 1522 of the Civil Code is granted exclusively to co-owners (cotenants) of a property held in common. This right may be exercised only when a co-owner sells his or her share to a third partythat is, a person who is not already a co-owner. The purpose is to consolidate ownership and terminate the co-ownership.

In this case, both Estrada and Reyes became co-owners through their respective purchases. Estrada acquired his share from Luisa del Rosario, and Reyes acquired hers from Aragon and Agustin del Rosario. Since both were already co-owners at the time they attempted to exercise redemption, neither could be considered a “third party” vis-à-vis the other. Therefore, the right of legal redemption could not be invoked by one co-owner against another co-owner.

The Court emphasized that the chronological order of their purchases did not alter their status as co-owners. Even if the right had been properly exercised by an original co-owner, Estrada and Reyes would both be considered third parties to that transaction, but the right of redemption belongs solely to a co-owner against a third-party buyer, not between two third-party buyers.

Accordingly, neither party was entitled to redeem the other’s share. The complaint and cross-complaint were dismissed, without special costs.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, and Araullo, JJ., concurred. Moreland, J., concurred in the result on other grounds. Carson and Trent, JJ., dissented.