G.R. No. 122047; October 12, 2000
SPOUSES SERAFIN SI AND ANITA BONODE SI, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES JOSE ARMADA and REMEDIOS ALMANZOR (deceased, and substituted by heirs: Cynthia Armada, Danilo Armada and Vicente Armada) respondents.

FACTS

The property in dispute is a 340-square-meter lot in Pasay City, originally owned by Escolastica, wife of Severo Armada, Sr. During their lifetime, the property was transferred to their three sons—Jose, Crisostomo, and Severo Jr.—with specific portions allotted to each via separate deeds of sale in 1954. However, only one title, TCT No. 16007, was issued in their names as co-owners, stating their respective shares (113.33, 113.34, and 113.33 sq. m.) due to the absence of a subdivision plan. In 1979, Crisostomo, through his attorney-in-fact and wife Cresenciana, sold his 113.34-square-meter share to spouses Serafin and Anita Si. The deed described the sold portion as an “undivided” share. Jose Armada and his spouse filed a complaint for annulment of the sale and reconveyance, asserting a co-owner’s right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code, claiming they were not given the requisite written notice of the sale.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the respondents, as co-owners, validly exercised their right of legal redemption over the portion sold by Crisostomo Armada to the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstating the trial court’s decision and dismissing the complaint. The Court held that the right of legal redemption under Article 1623 did not apply because co-ownership had already been terminated prior to the 1979 sale. The 1954 deeds of sale executed by the parents in favor of their three sons were absolute and conveyed specific, determinate portions of the land described by metes and bounds. These deeds effectively partitioned the property, ending the co-ownership and converting the brothers into owners of distinct portions, even if only one title was issued for administrative convenience. Consequently, the sale by Crisostomo was a sale of a specific, identified parcel, not an undivided share in a co-owned property. Since there was no co-ownership at the time of sale, the respondents had no right of legal redemption. The description of the share as “undivided” in the 1979 deed was a mere formal inaccuracy that did not revive the extinguished co-ownership. The award of damages and attorney’s fees by the Court of Appeals was likewise set aside.