G.R. No. L-30994 September 30, 1982
OLIMPIA BASA, ARSENIO BASA, NEMESIO BASA, RICARDO BASA, ATANACIA BASA, JULIANA BASA, and FELICIANO BASA, petitioners, vs. HON. ANDRES C. AGUILAR, Judge Presiding Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, GENARO PUYAT, BRIGIDA MESINA, PRIMO TIONGSON, and MACARIA PUYAT, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners are co-owners of an undivided one-half share of a parcel of land in Pampanga. The other undivided half was owned by private respondents Genaro Puyat and Brigida Mesina. On March 6, 1964, Genaro Puyat, with his wife’s consent, sold their one-half share to their daughter, Macaria Puyat, and her husband, Primo Tiongson, for P1,000.
Seven days later, the petitioners filed an action to exercise their legal right of redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code, depositing the redemption price with the court. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling that the petitioners were not entitled to redeem. The court reasoned that a sale to a child of the co-owner should not be considered a sale to a “third person” under the law, as children have an inchoate right of succession to the property, and allowing redemption in such a family context would be against public policy.

ISSUE

Whether the sale by a co-owner of his share to his child and son-in-law constitutes a sale to a “third person” under Article 1620 of the Civil Code, thereby triggering the other co-owners’ right of legal redemption.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the petitioners validly exercised their right of legal redemption. The legal logic is anchored on a strict interpretation of Article 1620, which grants a co-owner the right to redeem when shares are sold to a “third person.” The Court defined a “third person” as anyone who is not a co-owner. Primo Tiongson and Macaria Puyat were not co-owners prior to the sale; they were strangers to the existing co-ownership.
The trial court’s sentimental reasoning—that children have an inchoate right of succession—was legally erroneous. The sale was made by onerous title during the parents’ lifetime, so any future hereditary rights are irrelevant. Macaria Puyat’s potential inheritance is merely inchoate and does not negate her status as a third party to the present co-ownership. The purpose of legal redemption is to minimize co-ownership, a policy served by allowing existing co-owners to consolidate ownership by preventing the introduction of new, potentially incompatible parties into the co-ownership. Denying the right here would contravene this policy and the law’s explicit terms.