Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 22126 September 6, 1924
VENANCIO CORTES, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
GREGORIA FLORES, defendant-appellee.
Pedro Magsalin and Jose G. Generoso for appellant.
Modesto Reyes and Eliseo Ymzon for appellee.
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:
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.
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."
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.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
