VILLANUEVA v. FLORENDO- Third Party

The “third party” contemplated in Art. 1620 refers to those who are not heirs in succession, either contemplated by will or by law to succeed the deceased.

FACTS:

Spouses Villanueva and Garcia, parents of the petitioners, were owners of a land in Cagayan. Garcia died intestate, leaving her husband and children as sole and only legitimate heirs.
The spouse, without having the land partitioned, sold the western portion of the lot to the wife of one of his children. Upon learning of the sale, the petitioners signified their intention to redeem the lot, but respondent refused, stating that as wife of one of the legal heirs, redemption will not lie against her. RTC found in favor of respondent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent is a “third party” against whom redemption can be exercised against, pursuant to Art. 1620?

HELD:

Within the meaning of Art. 1620, the term "third person" or "stranger" refers to all persons who are not heirs in succession, and by heirs are meant only those who are called either by will or the law to succeed the deceased and who actually succeeds. In short, a third person is any one who is not a co-owner.
Respondent seller Villanueva, as co-owner and before partition, has the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest or his Ideal share but not a divided part and one with boundaries as what was done in the case at bar.

DISSENT (Aquino): The “third person” term contemplated in Art. 1620, basing on the Spanish origin of the Code, means “stranger”, and not merely one who is not an heir by succession.

In fact, the redemption should not run against the respondent for the reason that the land that respondent bought formed part of the conjugal property, of which her husband, who is a legitimate heir, also owns. Therefore, the land never transferred to the ownership or possession of “third parties”.