My brother wants to sell his share of our inherited land to a stranger — can the rest of us buy it first before he does?

You step into the buyer's shoes at his price

The article says the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale. That is subrogation, not a fresh negotiation: you do not offer what the land is worth, you refund what the outsider actually paid, and you take the position he bought. The wording is any or all, so one heir may exercise it alone or several may come in together. Because the figure that governs is the price in the sale, a price written up on paper to make redemption unattractive is worth examining closely against what really changed hands.

The month runs from written notice by the seller

The right must be exercised within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. Two conditions sit in that clause and both matter. The notice must be in writing, and it must come from the vendor — your brother — not from the buyer, a broker or a relative. Hearing about the sale as gossip, or seeing a stranger fencing the lot, does not start the clock, so a family that only learned of it late is not automatically out of time. The reverse is just as true: once proper written notice arrives, a month is very little time to raise the money.

Only before partition, and only to a stranger

The article governs an heir who sells his hereditary rights before the partition. Until then no heir owns any identified parcel; what he can sell is an undivided interest in the whole estate, which is why the law lets the family buy it back rather than take in an outsider. Once the estate has been divided, Article 1091 provides that A partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to him. — he is then selling his own land and this particular right is not the one in play. A sale to another co-heir is likewise not the case the article addresses.

What to establish now

Get the deed and its date, find out whether any written notice was ever sent and by whom, and confirm what was actually paid. Those three facts decide both whether the right still exists and what it will cost. Have the reimbursement money genuinely available rather than promised, because the month is not a period for arranging financing. Keep Article 1082 in mind before signing anything the family drafts among themselves: an arrangement meant to end the co-ownership is treated as a partition whatever the document calls itself, which can quietly close the window described above.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

• Guino Escabarte, et al. vs. Heirs of Benigno Isaw, et al, G.R. No. 208595, August 28, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Joseph Cua vs. Gloria A. Vargas, G.R. No. 156536, October 31, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Republic of the Philippines etc. vs. Heirs of Francisca Dignos-Sorono etc, G.R. No. 171571, March 24, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Clarita P. Hermoso, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 108580, December 29, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1088 — Legal Redemption Among Co-Heirs
• Civil Code, Article 1078 — Co-Ownership Before Partition
• Civil Code, Article 1082 — Any Act Ending Indivision Is a Partition
• Civil Code, Article 1091 — Partition Confers Exclusive Ownership