The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that a co-owner must give written notice to the other co-owners before selling their share of a property.
However, if the other co-owners already knew about the sale and failed to exercise their right to buy the share within 30 days, the written notice is no longer required.
In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division denied the petition filed by Antonio Azurin, Jr. (Antonio) and Rafael Azurin (Rafael) to buy back a parcel of land registered in the name of Carlito Chua (Chua).
Siblings Antonio and Rafael, and their aunt Adelaida, co-own a parcel of land in Aparri, Cagayan. Antonio and Rafael had the land.
Adelaida later sold her portion to Chua, which was officially registered in Chua’s name after the land was surveyed and divided.
Chua then filed a case with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Antonio and Rafael to take possession of the land. The RTC ruled in his favor.
Years later, Antonio and Rafael attempted to buy back the land from Chua by filing a complaint for legal redemption. The RTC dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, stating that the case was filed too late—years after the sale and well beyond the 30 days allowed by the Civil Code.
Antonio and Rafael appealed to the SC, arguing that they were unable to exercise their right to redeem the property as co-owners because Adelaida did not inform them of the sale in writing.
The SC denied their appeal. Generally, a co-owner intending to sell their share to a third party must notify the other co-owners in writing about the sale. The other co-owners then have 30 days from receipt of the written notice to redeem or buy back the portion sold. If they fail to do so within the period, they lose the right to redeem the sold portion.
The SC clarified that although written notice to co-owners is necessary, it can be waived if (1) unusual circumstances have made the co-owners aware of the sale, and (2) the co-owners did not take action or were negligent in their right to redeem the property, a situation referred to in law as laches.
The SC found that Antonio and Rafael were aware of the sale. They were in actual possession of the land and, therefore, were informed about the survey conducted on it. Additionally, they received Chua’s legal complaint to recover possession, which clearly showed the land had been sold. However, they waited more than six years before trying to redeem the property.
“The written notice requirement may be dispensed with in the instant case due to the peculiar circumstances involved and the laches that had set in against petitioners. It would be the height of inequity to allow them to redeem despite their inaction of six years and two months.” (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)
This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 259662 (Antonio Azurin, Jr. and Rafael Azurin v. Carlito Chua, April 23, 2025).
Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.
