SORIANO VS BAUTISTA

GR NO. L-15752, DEC 29, 1962

Facts: Spouses Bautista , for a consideration of P1,800 executed a “kasulatan ng sanglaan” in favor
of Ruperto Soriano and Olimpia De jesus. Immediately, the possession was given to Soriano and De
Jesus. It was stipulated that if financial condition of the mortgagees permit,they may purchase the
land within the two year term for P3,900.

Issue: Whether or not Spouses Bautista must sell the land based on the stipulation

Held: The stipulation which renders a mortgagor’s right to redeem is defeasible at mortgagee’s
election. It is not illegal or immoral being merely an option to buy sanctioned by art 1479m of the CC
when supported by consideration distinct from the purchase price
FIRST GLOBAL REALTY & DEV’T CORP.VS SAN AGUSTIN
377 SCRA 341

Facts: Respondent Agustin intended to sell a property to Camachos for P2.5m. the Camachos initially
gave P100,000 and promised to pay the balance upon procurement of a loan .Spouses Camacho
was able to obtain a loan amounting to P1.9m from First Global Realty,making a parcel of land as the
collateral. The Spouses failed to pay their obligation. Hence, First Global realty filed a civil action for
foreclosure.before the property could be foreclosed, a dacion en pago was agreed where the First
Global ceded the property’s ownership in consideration of the loan.

Issue: WON petitioner is a purchaser in good faith

Held: By executing a dacion en pago the sellers effectively waived the redemption period normally
given to mortgagor. The Camacho’s non-payment of the agreed purchase price and the irregularities
surrounding the dacion en pago are serious enough to allow possession pendete lite.
HERMOSO VS CA
300 SCRA 516

Facts: The subject property in the case at bar was inherited by the Hermoso siblings. 2/3 of the land
was later o sold to the Palaganas by the Hermoso brothers without the consent of their mother Clarita
and sister Victoria. Hence, the latter seeks to redeem the said land from the Palaganas. The
Palaganas refused to resell the land.

Issue: WON the petitioners may still exercise their right of redemption

Held: Yes. If a co-owner has offered to redeem the land within the period fixed by law, he has
complied with the law, he may bring the action to enforce the redemption after every offer has been
rejected. Since the property was co-owned the right of legal redemption under Art. 1620 of the CC
would still subsist.
FRANCISCO VS. BOISER
332 SCRA 792

Facts: Adalia Francisco and her sisters were co-owners of 4 parcels of land on which the Ten
Commandments Building in Caloocan City. They sold their 1/5 undivided share in said land to their
mother Adela making her a co-owner. Adela sold her share without knowledge of the co-owners to
Zenaida Boiser. Petitioner then wanted to exercise her right of redemption as co-owner of the subject
property. She alleges that she was never informed of such sale hence the 30 day period for
redemption has not begun to run.

Issue: WON the notice requirement under Art. 1623 for the purpose of legal redemption was complied
with

Held: No. Under art. 1623, the notice required must be given by the vendor because he is in the best
position to know who are his co-owners who under the law must be notified of the sale. In the instant
case, petitioner knew of the sale only when she received a letter from Boiser with a demand of her
share for the payment of the rentals on said land. For this reason, the receipt of summons in the civil
case constitutes actual knowledge. Such date of receipt of summons would be the basis within which
the 30 day period of redemption would begin to run.