Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1924 > September 1924 Decisions > G.R. No. 22126 September 6, 1924 - VENANCIO CORTES v. GREGORIA FLORES

047 Phil 992:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 22126. September 6, 1924. ]

VENANCIO CORTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREGORIA FLORES, Defendant-Appellee.

Pedro Magsalin and Jose G. Generoso of Appellant.

Modesto Reyes and Eliseo Ymzon for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. REDEMPTION BETWEEN ADJOINING OWNERS; NOT GRANTED WHERE ONE OF LOTS IS URBAN. — The right of redemption between adjacent owners provided in article 1523 of the Civil Code exists only when both the land of the one exercising the right of redemption and the adjacent property sought to be redeemed are rural. If either is, or both are urban, there is no right of redemption. (Decision, supreme court of Spain of May 2, 1902.)


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J. :


This is an appeal taken by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered in this case by the Court of First Instance of Rizal, dismissing the complaint.

The action is under article 1523 of the Civil Code which grants the adjoining owners the right of redemption under certain circumstances. Said article is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The owners of the adjacent lands shall also have the right of redemption in case of the sale of a rural estate whose area does not exceed one hectare.

"The right referred to in the next preceding paragraph does not exist with respect to adjacent lands which are divided by brooks, aqueducts, ravines, roads, or other apparent easements pertaining to other estates.

"If two or more adjacent owners should desire to make use of the right of redemption at the same time, the one who is owner of the adjacent land of lesser area shall be preferred; or, should both be equal in area, the one who first requested it."cralaw virtua1aw library

The lower court denied the right of redemption because it appeared from Exhibit B that the land of the plaintiff adjacent to that which is sought to be redeemed in this action is not rural but urban, although the latter was shown to be rural.

We find this view correct. The intention of the law in giving this right of redemption is to protect agriculture, by the union of small agricultural lands and those adjoining thereto under one single owner for their better exploitation. If the land adjacent to that which is sought to be redeemed is not agricultural, then the redemption is in vain, — it does not answer the purpose of the law.

"Where the two, or one alone, of the estates are urban," says the supreme court of Spain in a decision of March 12, 1902, "a judgment dismissing an action for redemption is in accordance with this provision."cralaw virtua1aw library

The foregoing is as to the first cause of action. As to the second, it has also no merit under the evidence, which we have reviewed, bearing in mind the motion of the appellant of July 28, 1924. It is not alleged, nor was it sufficiently proven, that the defendant had knowledge of such contract about the care of the sugar cane plantation as the plaintiff says there was between him and Eleuteria Junsay who is not a party to this action.

We find no sufficient merit in this appeal.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, and Ostrand, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1924 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22015 September 1, 1924 - MARSHALL-WELLS CO. v. HENRY W. ELSER & CO., INC.

    046 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L- 21414 September 3, 1924 - RAMON ZARAGOZA v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    046 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 22126 September 6, 1924 - VENANCIO CORTES v. GREGORIA FLORES

    047 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. 22424 September 8, 1924 - RUFINO MANALO v. CAYETANO LUKBAN, ET AL.

    048 Phil 973

  • G.R. No. L-22132 September 9, 1924 - ANSELMA LAPUZ v. CFI OF PAMPANGA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-22740 September 10, 1924 - CIRILO ACEJAS v. ANDRES C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    046 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-21924 September 11, 1924 - SING JUCO v. BENJAMIN CUAYCONG, ET AL.

    046 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. L-22041 September 11, 1924 - JOSE ALEJANDRINO v. MANUEL L. QUEZON, ET AL.

    046 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-22106 September 11, 1924 - ASIA BANKING CORP. v. STANDARD PRODUCTS CO.

    046 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-21269 September 13, 1924 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FRANCISCO AVILA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. L-21587 September 13, 1924 - MATEO DISTOR v. GREGORIO DORADO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-21923 September 13, 1924 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO., LTD. v. POTENCIANO DE PIO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-22206 September 13, 1924 - JOSE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-21911 September 15, 1924 - EL VARADERO DE MLA. v. INSULAR LUMBER CO.

    046 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-21943 September 15, 1924 - ASKAY v. FERNANDO A. COSALAN

    046 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. 22102 September 19, 1924 - RAFAEL FLORES v. SOTERO FLORES, ET AL.

    048 Phil 982

  • G.R. No. L-21556 September 20, 1924 - AUGUSTO J. D. CORTES v. LORENZO RAMOS

    046 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. 21387 September 22, 1924 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    048 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. 21206 September 22, 1924 - ANTONIO ABEJOLA v. INOCENTES DAVID, ET AL.

    049 Phil 965

  • G.R. No. L-22911 September 23, 1924 - RAMON BLANCO, ET AL. v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, ET AL.

    046 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-21639 September 25, 1924 - ALBERT F. KIEL v. ESTATE OF P. S. SABERT

    046 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-21969 September 25, 1924 - MAXIMINA TAN v. GO CHIONG LEE, ET AL.

    046 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-22073 September 25, 1924 - AMERICAN EXPRESS CO., INC., ET AL. v. JOAQUIN NATIVIDAD

    046 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-22173 September 25, 1924 - JULIANA ABRAGAN, ET AL. v. RITA G. DE CENTENERA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-20732 September 26, 1924 - C. W. ROSENSTOCK v. EDWIN BURKE, ET AL.

    046 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-22082 September 26, 1924 - LEOPOLDO DE BELEN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    046 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-21487 September 27, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MAMERTO A. VALDELLON, ET AL.

    046 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. L-21718 September 27, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SOTERO BERMEJO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-21922 September 27, 1924 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RUSTICO PADILLA

    046 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-22080 September 27, 1927

    EL DORADO OIL WORKS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    046 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-22557 September 27, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ZACARIAS RAGAZA

    046 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-21671 September 29, 1924 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. MUN. OF TABACO

    046 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-21995 September 29, 1924 - ISIDRO S. VILLARUEL v. ALBINA ALVAYDA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-21805 September 30, 1924 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANDRES ABSOLO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-21859 September 30, 1924 - CIRIACO FULE v. ANASTASIO FULE, ET AL.

    046 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-22063 September 30, 1924 - LUCIO FRANCISCO v. CRISPULO ONRUBIA

    046 Phil 327