DOROMAL V. CA (September 5, 1975)

FACTS:

A parcel of land in Iloilo were co-owned by 7 siblings all surnamed Horilleno. 5 of the siblings gave a SPA to their niece Mary Jimenez, who succeeded her father as a co-owner, for the sale of the land to father and son Doromal. One of the co-owner, herein petitioner, Filomena Javellana however did not gave her consent to the sale even though her siblings executed a SPA for her signature. The co-owners went on with the sale of 6/7 part of the land and a new title for the Doromals were issued.

Respondent offered to repurchase the land for 30K as stated in the deed of sale but petitioners declined invoking lapse in time for the right of repurchase. Petitioner also contend that the 30K price was only placed in the deed of sale to minimize payment of fees and taxes and as such, respondent should pay the real price paid which was P115, 250.

ISSUE:

WON the period to repurchase of petitioner has already lapsed.

HELD:

Period of repurchase has not yet lapsed because the respondent was not notified of the sale. The 30-day period for the right of repurchase starts only after actual notice not only of a perfected sale but of actual execution and delivery of the deed of sale.

The letter sent to the respondent by the other co-owners cannot be considered as actual notice because the letter was only to inform her of the intention to sell the property but not its actual sale. As such, the 30-day period has not yet commenced and the respondent can still exercise his right to repurchase.

The respondent should also pay only the 30K stipulated in the deed of sale because a redemptioner’s right is to be subrogated by the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract.