Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ORCINE
March 31, 1971 | Barredo, J. | Appeal | Adjoining landowners of urban land
PETITIONER: Santiagio Ortega
RESPONDENT: Andres Orcine and Doroteo Esplana
SUMMARY:
DOCTRINE: It is evident that the purpose of the new Civil Code in allowing redemption of adjoining urban
land is to discourage speculation in real estate and the consequent aggravation of the housing problems in
centers of population.
It is clear that the term urban in this provision does not necessarily refer to the nature of the land itself sought
to be redeemed nor to the purpose to which it is somehow devoted, but to the character of the community or
vicinity in which it is found. In this sense, even if the land is somehow dedicated to agriculture, it is still
urban, in contemplation of this law, if it is located within the center of population or the more or less
populated portion of a city or town.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner wants to redeem the land he sold to
Orcine, which the latter then sold to Esplana. When
it was sold to Esplana, it was a mere ricefield but
the latter had subdivided it into lots and is actually
being occupied by a private school.
2. Petitioner invokes Art. 1622. He conceded that
the land was rural when he sold it to Esplana but
upon exercise of redemption, it was already urban.
Hence, the reckoning point is at the time he seeks to
exercise redemption.
ISSUE/S:
Can petitioner exercise a right of repurchase? NO
1.