A Co-Owner Sold to a Stranger: Your Right to Buy It Back

Article 1619 defines it:

"Subrogated" means the redeeming co-owner steps into the buyer's shoes. The buyer gets back what he paid, and the share goes to the co-owner.

The term is also explained in legal redemption.

Article 1620 gives co-owners this right:

Three points follow:

• The right exists when a share is sold to a third person, someone outside the co-ownership. Each co-owner may sell his own share without the others' consent (Article 493). See Can a co-owner sell his share?
• If the price is grossly excessive, the redeeming co-owner pays only a reasonable price.
• If two or more co-owners want to redeem, they share in proportion to their shares in the property.

The right of co-owners comes first: under Article 1623, it "excludes that of adjoining owners", who have their own rights of redemption in Articles 1621 and 1622.

Article 1623 sets the period and the form of notice:

For heirs who inherited property that has not yet been divided, a similar rule applies to a co-heir who sells his hereditary rights to a stranger: the other co-heirs may take the buyer's place by reimbursing the price "within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor" (Article 1088).

The written notice from the seller is the starting point. In Rama v. Spouses Nogra (2021), the Supreme Court said it "has been consistent in ruling that the required written notice by the seller is mandatory and indispensable for the 30-day redemption period to commence." The Court quoted an earlier ruling that "mere knowledge of the sale, acquired in some other manner by the redemptioner, does not satisfy the statute."

There is an exception. Rama said the written notice "may only be dispensed with upon a showing that the co-owners already had sufficient knowledge of the sale and they were guilty of laches in the exercise of their redemption right." Laches means waiting an unreasonably long time to assert a right. Without both of these, the written notice remains indispensable. In Rama, the Court reinstated the trial court's decision in favor of the co-owner who sought redemption.

Other decisions have repeated older rulings that a co-owner with actual notice of the sale does not need a written notice, for example Baltazar v. Miguel (2021), which mentioned this in passing while deciding the case on another point. So knowing about the sale does not always start the thirty days. Whether it does in a given case depends on the facts and on the court.

For co-heirs, Cua v. Vargas (2006) also held that written notice is needed to start the one-month period of Article 1088, even if the co-heirs had learned of the sale in other ways.

This page does not say whether a text or chat message counts as notice in writing: the decisions we read do not answer that.

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Rey and his two sisters co-own a lot. Rey sells his one-third share to Mila, who is not a co-owner. Rey must notify his sisters in writing. They then have thirty days from that written notice to take Mila's place by paying her the same price (Articles 1620 and 1623).

Rey never sends a written notice. Following Rama, the thirty days have not started, and the sisters may still redeem.

Same facts, but the sisters knew of the sale for years, saw Mila build on the lot, and did nothing. A court may find laches and refuse redemption, under the exception in Rama.

Talk to a lawyer as soon as you learn that a co-owner or co-heir sold his share to a stranger, because the period can be as short as thirty days or one month from written notice. A lawyer can check the notice, the price and the steps to take.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines. Disputes between relatives about land may first need barangay conciliation: see Do I need to go to the barangay first?