1.) Betty and Lydia were co-owners of a parcel of land. Last January 31, 2001, when she paid her real estate tax, Betty discovered that Lydia had sold her share to Emma on November 10, 2000. The following day, Betty offered to redeem her share from Emma, but the latter replied that Betty's right to redeem has already prescribed. Is Emma correct or not? Why?
No, Emma, the buyer, is not correct. Betty can still enforce her right of legal redemption as a co-owner. Art. 1623 of the Civil Code gives a co- owner 30 days from written notice of the sale by the vendor to exercise his right of legal redemption. In the present problem, the 30- day period for the exercise by Betty of her right of redemption had not even begun to run because no notice in writing of the sale appears to have been given to her by Lydia.
2.) Adela and Beth are co-owners of a parcel of land. Beth sold her undivided share of the property to Xandro, who promptly notified Adela of the sale and furnished the latter a copy of the deed of absolute sale. When Xandro presented the deed for registration, the register of deeds also notified Adela of the sale, enclosing a copy of the deed with the notice. However, Adela ignored the notices. A year later, Xandro filed a petition for the partition of the property. Upon receipt of summons, Adela immediately tendered the requisite amount for the redemption. Xandro contends that Adela lost her right of redemption after the expiration of 30 days from her receipt of the notice of the sale given by him. May Adela still exercise her right of redemption? Explain.
Yes, Adela may still exercise her right of redemption notwithstanding the lapse of more than 30 days from notice of the sale given to her because Art. 1623 of the New Civil Code requires that the notice in writing of the sale must come from the prospective vendor or vendor as the case may be. In this case, the notice of the sale was given by the vendee and the Register of Deeds. The period of 30 days never tolled. She can still avail of that right.
3.) Krystal owns a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 12345 in Angeles City. Due to severe financial constraints, Krystal was forced to sell the property to RBP Corporation, a foreign corporation based in South Korea. Subsequently, RBP Corporation sold the property to Gloria, one of its most valued clients. Wanting her property back, Krystal, learning of the transfer of the property from RBP Corporation to Gloria, sued both of them in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for annulment of sale and for reconveyance. She alleged that the sale by RBP Corporation to Gloria was void because RBP Corporation was a foreign corporation prohibited by the Constitution from acquiring and owning lands in the Philippines. Will Krystal’s suit for annulment of sale and reconveyance prosper? Explain your answer.
Krystal’s suit will not prosper. The Supreme Court consistently ruled that if land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a Filipino citizen or transfers it to a Filipino, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid. In this case, RBP, being a foreign corporation is prohibited from acquiring private land, making the sale of Krystal to RBP void ab initio. However, the subsequent transfer to a Filipino citizen cured the defect, making Gloria’s title valid and defeating Krystal’s action for annulment and reconveyance.
4.) A leased a parcel of land to B for a period of two years. The lease contract did not contain any express prohibition against the assignment of the leasehold or the subleasing of the leased premises. During the third year of the lease, B subleased the land to C. In turn, C, without A's consent, assigned the sublease to D. A then filed an action for the rescission of the contract of lease on the ground that B has violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. If you were the judge, how would you decide the case, particularly with respect to the validity of: a) B’s sublease to C? and b) C’sassignmentofthesubleasetoD? Explain your answers.
B's sublease to C is Although the original period of two years for the lease contract has expired, the lease continued with the acquiescence of the lessor during the third year. Hence, there has been an implied renewal of the contract of lease. Under Art. 1650, the lessee may sublet the thing leased, in whole or in part, when the contract of lease does not contain any express prohibition (Arts. 1650, 1670). A's action for rescission should not prosper on this ground.
C's assignment of the sublease to D is not Under Art. 1649, the lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. There is no such stipulation in the contract. If the law prohibits assignment of the lease without the consent of the lessor, all the more would the assignment of a sublease be prohibited without such consent. This is a violation of the contract and is a valid ground for rescission by A.