MAXIMO VIOLA AND JUANA ROURA, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. VICENTA TECSON, DONATA LAJON AND AURELIA TECSON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

The property in question described in the complaint was originally  held in common by  Fortunato Capistrano, Nicolas C. Cruz and Felix Cepilio Cruz.  On September 26, 1923 the plaintiffs, the  spouses Maximo Viola  and Juana Roura,  acquired from Fortunato  Capistrano and Nicolas C. Cruz three-fourths of their share in this property.  Felix Cepilio  Cruz did not exercise his right of legal redemption  in this sale.   On March  7, 1925  Clara Santos, as administratrix of the intestate  estate of the deceased Felix Cepilio  Cruz, sold one-fourth of Felix Cepilio Cruz’ share in this  property for the sum of P4,000 to the  defendant sisters, Vicenta and Aurelia Tecson. This sale was authorized  by the court and was approved on March 10th.   On the 20th of the same month the plaintiffs filed the complaint which initiated this action, in which they prayed that, by virtue of the right of legal redemption which they had in the sale  of  this one-fourth part  of the property made to.the defendants, judgment be rendered for the transfer of this share to them.  The court holding that the right of legal redemption is granted by law only to the original co-owners and  not to  those who may later acquire their share in the community, and, considering  that the plaintiffs are not the original coowners of the property in question, absolved the defendants from the complaint.  From this judgment the plaintiffs appealed.

As a question of fact, there  is no doubt that the plaintiffs exercised their right  of redemption within the  period of nine days provided by law, even taking into consideration that they did so only when they filed  their complaint on March 20, 1925.  While the sale appears to have been made on the 7th of the month, it was not approved by the court until the 10th,  so that, excluding the latter date, only nine days elapsed up to the 20th.  But, besides this, before filing their  complaint, the  plaintiffs  had already  requested the defendants to permit them to repurchase Felix Cepilio Cruz’ share.   And, moreover,  we are  of  the opinion that the plaintiffs had knowledge  of the  sale only on the 15th of that month.

In regard  to the question of law, we are of the opinion that the right  of legal redemption (art. 1522 of the Civil Code)  is not conceded solely and exclusively to the original coowners  but applies to  those who subsequently acquire their respective shares while the community subsists. The purpose of the law in establishing the right of legal redemption between coowners is to reduce the number of participants until the community is done away with, being a hindrance to the development and better administration of the property, and this reason exists while the community subsists and the participants  continue to  be so  whether they be the original co-owners or their successors.   The law must be so interpreted not only because it is  in accordance with the spirit thereof but because there is nothing in its provisions which expressly, or by inference,  limits the right of redemption to the  original co-owners.

The  judgment appealed  from is revoked and it  is held that the plaintiffs have the right to repurchase from the defendants the one-fourth share  of the  land in question which they acquired from Felix Cepilio Cruz, after complying with the conditions  prescribed by  law for  exercising this right, without any special  pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.