Cured flaw
Simon, an American citizen, died leaving real properties in the Philippines. His forced heirs were his widow, Len, and his son, Drey, both of whom are also American citizens. Len executed a deed of quitclaim assigning, transferring and conveying to Drey all her rights, titles and interests in and over six parcels of urban land which the two of them inherited from Simon. Drey thereafter sold the properties to Emil, a handsome Filipino.
Cel and Art, who are owners of the adjoining lot, filed a court case questioning the constitutionality and validity of the two conveyances—between Len and Drey, and between the latter and Emil—and further claimed ownership thereto based on their right of legal redemption under Art. 1621 of the Civil Code.
Q: What is the right of redemption under Art. 1621 of the New Civil Code?
A: Article 1621 states that “The owners of adjoining lands shall also have the right of redemption when a piece of rural land, the area of which does not exceed one hectare, is alienated, unless the grantee does not own any rural land. This right is not applicable to adjacent lands which are separated by brooks, drains, ravines, roads and other apparent servitudes for the benefit of other estates. If two or more adjoining owners desire to exercise the right of redemption at the same time, the owner of the adjoining land of smaller area shall be preferred; and should both lands have the same area, the one who first requested the redemption.”
Q: Can Cel and Art validly invoke the right of redemption under Art. 1621?
A: No. Under this article, both lands—that sought to be redeemed and the adjacent lot belonging to the person exercising the right of redemption—must be rural. If one or both are urban, the right cannot be invoked. The purpose of this provision, which is limited in scope to rural lands not exceeding one hectare, is to favor agricultural development. The subject land not being rural and, therefore, not agricultural, this purpose would not be served if petitioners are granted the right of redemption under Art. 1621.
Q: Is the sale of the lands by Drey to Emil valid?
A: Yes, the sale of the lands by Drey to Emil renders moot any question on the constitutionally of the prior transfer made by Len to her son Drey. True, Len’s deed of quitclaim—in which she assigned, transferred and conveyed to Drey all her rights, titles and interests over the property she had inherited from her husband—collided with the Constitution, Article XII, Section 7 of which provides: “Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.”
While it is clear that, non-Filipinos cannot acquire or hold title to private lands or to lands of the public domain, except only by way of legal succession, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid. In other words, the subsequent sale can no longer be impugned on the basis of the invalidity of the initial transfer. The rationale of this principle being “if the ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also urban lands, as construed by this Court in the Krivenko case, is to preserve the nation’s lands for future generations of Filipinos, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by naturalization.”
(Source: Halili vs CA, G.R. No. 113539 March 12, 1998)
Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis Dean, Lyceum of the Philippines University; chairperson, Philippine Association of Law Schools; founder, Mawis Law Office
