Practice question
A co-owner hears a vague rumor that another share may have been sold. There is no written notice, no sufficient knowledge of the sale’s particulars, and no laches. The buyer claims Azurin abolished written notice altogether and the period has automatically expired. Which is correct?
- Every rumor triggers the period.
- Registration alone universally supplies every required fact despite the stipulated absence of knowledge.
- The general written-notice requirement remains; the stipulated facts do not establish Azurin’s qualified exception.
- Azurin makes all co-ownership redemption rights perpetual regardless of valid notice.
- Only the buyer’s intention matters.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, articles 1601,1606–1607,1616,1619–1623.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_259662_2025.html — Azurin, Jr. v Chua, GR 259662, April 23 2025, main opinion: written notice and peculiar-circumstances/laches exception.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/sep2021/gr_219556_2021.html — Rama v Spouses Nogra, GR 219556, September 14 2021, main opinion: sufficient knowledge plus laches.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.