NELSON CABALES and RITO CABALES v. CA, Sps. Feliano G.R. No. 162421; A!s" #1, 2$$% s'(a 6)1 Le!al S''ession FACTS Rufino Cabales died and left a parcel of land to his surviving wife Saturnina and children Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco, Francisco, Leonora, Alberto and and petitioner Rito. Rito. On 1!1, 1!1, brothe brothers rs and co"ow co"owner ners s Bonifa Bonifacio cio,, Albin Albino o and Alber Alberto to sold sold the sub#ec sub#ectt proper propert$ t$ to %r. %r. Corro&pido with right to repurchase within eight $ears and divided the proceeds of the sale a&ong the&selves. Alberto died leaving leaving his wife wife and son, petitioner 'elson. (ithin the eight"$ear rede&ption period, Bonifacio and Albino tendered their pa$&ent to %r. Corro&pido while Saturnina paid for the share of her deceased son, Alberto. %r. Corro&pido Corro&pido released the docu&ent of sale with pacto de retro. On even date, Saturnina and her four children Bonifacio, Albino, Francisco and Leonora sold the sub#ect parcel of land to respondents"spouses )esus and Anunciacion Feliano. *n 1++, Saturnina died. etitioner 'elson, went bac- to his fathers ho&etown where learned fro& his uncle Rito of the sale of sub#ect propert$. *n *n 1/, he signified his intention to redee& the sub#ect land Respondents"spouses &aintained that petitioner 'elson was estopped fro& clai&ing an$ right over sub#ect propert$ considering that 'elson failed to consign to the court the total a&ount of the rede&ption price necessar$ for legal rede&ption. 0he trial court ruled against petitioners. *t held that Alberto or, b$ his death, an$ of his heirs including petitioner 'elson lost their right to sub#ect land when not one of the& repurchased it fro& %r. Corro&pido. On appeal, the appellate court ruled that petitioner 'elson is co"owner to the etent of one"seventh 213!4 of sub#ect propert$. 5owever, 5owever, it denied petitioner 'elsons clai& for rede&ption for his failure to tender or consign in court the rede&ption &one$ within the period prescribed b$ law. etitioner 'elson contends that the Court of Appeals erred in recogni6ing hi& as co"owner of sub#ect land but denied hi& the right of legal rede&ption ISS*E (hether or not 'elson Cabales is a co"owner of the sub#ect land and with the right of legal rede&ption 7 +ES R*LING (hen Rufino Cabales died intestate intestate,, his wife Saturnin Saturnina a and his si 284 children, including including Alberto, Alberto, survived and succeeded hi&. Article 8 of the 'ew Civil Code provides that 9:i;f a widow or widower and legiti&ate children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the sa&e share as
that of each of the children.9 Articles 1?++ and 18@/ of the 'ew Civil Code are pertinent Art. 1?++. Should an$ of the heirs sell his hereditar$ rights to a stranger before the partition, an$ or all of the co"heirs &a$ be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser b$ rei&bursing hi& for the price of the sale, provided the$ do so within the period of one &onth fro& the ti&e the$ were notified in writing of the sale b$ the vendor. Art. 18@/. 0he right of legal pre"e&ption or rede&ption shall not be eercised ecept within thirt$ da$s fro& the notice in writing b$ the prospective vendor, or b$ the vendor, as the case &a$ be. 0he deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registr$ of ropert$, unless acco&panied b$ an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible rede&ptioners. 0he right of rede&ption of co"owners ecludes that of ad#oining owners. Legal rede&ption &a$ onl$ be eercised b$ the co"owner or co"owners who did not part with his or their pro"indiviso share in the propert$ held in co&&on. As established, the sale as to the undivided share of petitioner 'elson and his &other was not valid such that the$ were not divested of their ownership thereto. 'ecessaril$, the$ &a$ redee& the sub #ect propert$ fro& respondents"spouses. But the$ &ust do so within thirt$ da$s fro& notice in writing of the sale b$ their co"owners vendors. *n the instant case, the right of rede&ption was invo-ed not da$s but $ears after the sale was &ade. etitioner 'elson, as correctl$ held b$ the Court of Appeals, can no longer redee& sub#ect propert$. But he and his &other re&ain co"owners thereof with respondents"spouses. Accordingl$, title to sub#ect propert$ &ust include the&.
