This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-11-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| law partly for reasons of public policy and partly for the benefit and convenience of the redemptioner, to afford him a way out of what might be a disagreeable or [an] inconvenient association into which he has been thrust. (10 Manresa, 4th. Ed., 317.) It is intended to minimize co-ownership. The law grants a co-owner the exercise of the said right of redemption when the shares of the other owners are sold to a 'third person."'[14] There is no legal redemption, either in case of a mere lease[15] and if the purchaser is also a tenant.[16] Equally unavailing is petitioners' contention that the sale was void, because the vendor had not sent any notice in writing to the other co-owners as required under Article 1625 of the Code. Indeed, the Code merely provides that a deed of sale shall not be recorded in the | |||||