This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-12-16 |
|||||
| Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share they may respectively have in the thing owned in common." The purpose behind Article 1620 is to provide a method for terminating the co-ownership and consolidating the dominion in one sole owner.[5] | |||||
|
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 | |||||