Del Rosario v. Bansil
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Heirs of Pelagia Sanchez executed an extrajudicial partition. Appellant Vicente del Rosario received Lot No. 2854-A, registered under his name and his spouse. Appellee Julio Bansil received Lot No. 2654-B, registered under his name and his spouse. On May 10, 1976, Julio Bansil sold Lot No. 2654-B to appellee Alejandra Sanchez for P1,500.00 without first offering it to Vicente del Rosario as an adjoining owner. Procedural History: Vicente del Rosario filed a complaint for annulment of sale and reconveyance, claiming the right of preemption. He deposited P1,500.00. The appellees argued that no law grants pre-emptive rights to adjoining owners and that they had offered the property to the appellant prior to the sale, but he refused due to financial incapacity. They also claimed the appellant's desire to buy was belied by his wife's attempts to sell their own adjoining lot to Alejandra Sanchez. The trial court dismissed the complaint. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which forwarded it to the Supreme Court as it involved purely questions of law. The Petition: The appellant raised two assignments of error: (I) The court below erred in applying Article 1622 of the New Civil Code instead of Article 1623. (II) The court below erred in not declaring the Transfer Certificate of Title issued to Alejandra Sanchez null and void for non-compliance with Article 1623.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the right of preemption or redemption as an adjoining owner under Article 1622 of the Civil Code. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the right of preemption or redemption as a co-owner under Article 1623 of the Civil Code. Whether the sale of the adjoining lot to Alejandra Sanchez is null and void for non-compliance with Article 1623 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the right of preemption or redemption as an adjoining owner: The Supreme Court reiterated its ruling that an owner of an urban land has no right of preemption or redemption over an adjoining portion of his land unless specific conditions are met. These conditions are that the portion must be so small and so situated that a major part thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose within a reasonable time, and it must have been bought merely for speculation. In the present case, the 86 square meters lot in question could not be considered too small for practical purposes, as a residential house could be constructed thereon, similar to equally sized lots on either side. Furthermore, the lot was inherited by appellee Julio Bansil from his grandmother, thus it was not bought for speculation. Therefore, the requisites for the exercise of the right of preemption or redemption as an adjoining owner were not met. On the right of preemption or redemption as a co-owner: The Court clarified that the right of preemption or redemption as a co-owner is extinguished once the inherited property has been partitioned and distributed among the co-owners. The rationale is that the community has terminated, and there is no longer any basis to sustain such a right. In this case, the inherited property was not only partitioned but also subdivided into several parcels, with Transfer Certificates of Title already issued in the names of the respective heirs. Consequently, the appellant could not claim the right of preemption or redemption as a co-owner. On the nullity of the sale: Since the appellant failed to establish his right of preemption or redemption under either Article 1622 or Article 1623 of the Civil Code, the sale of the adjoining lot to Alejandra Sanchez cannot be declared null and void on the ground of non-compliance with these provisions. The Court found that the appellant did not possess the legal standing to assert such a right in this instance. The appellees' claim that they had offered the property to the appellant prior to the sale, and that he refused due to financial incapacity, further weakened the appellant's position. Moreover, the appellees argued that Alejandra Sanchez, as an adjoining property owner herself, would have an equal or even superior right if such a right were to exist.
Main Doctrine
An owner of an urban land has no right of preemption or redemption over an adjoining portion of his land unless it is so small and so situated that a major portion thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose and was bought merely for speculation. Furthermore, the right of preemption or redemption as a co-owner does not apply after the inherited property has been partitioned and subdivided among the heirs.