GR L 48457; (November, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-48457 November 29, 1988
PERLA HERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO C. QUITAIN and ERNESTA M. VALDEMORO, respondents.
FACTS
The property in dispute was originally part of a larger parcel owned by the spouses Crispulo Manlapaz and Antonia Villanueva. Upon their death, their children, including private respondent Ernesta Manlapaz-Valdemoro and her brother Sancho Manlapaz, executed an extrajudicial partition of the estate on December 30, 1974. By virtue of this partition, each heir received a specific, adjudicated portion. Subsequently, Sancho sold his specific lot to petitioner Perla Hernandez on March 8, 1975. Ernesta, who had purchased the adjacent lot from another brother, Jose, on April 8, 1975, sought to redeem the lot sold to Hernandez. She filed a complaint, deposited the redemption price, and claimed she was entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption as a co-owner under Articles 1620 and 1623 of the Civil Code, alleging she was not notified of the sale.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether private respondent Ernesta Valdemoro, after the extrajudicial partition of the inherited property, retained the right of legal redemption as a co-owner over the specific lot sold by her co-heir to a third party.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and ruled that no right of legal redemption existed. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of co-ownership. The right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code presupposes the existence of a co-ownership, defined under Article 484 as ownership of an undivided thing or right by different persons. The Court, citing De la Cruz v. Cruz, emphasized that for co-ownership to exist, a co-owner must own a spiritual or ideal share in the whole, not a physically divided and specific portion. Once an extrajudicial partition is executed, the co-ownership is terminated, and each heir becomes the exclusive owner of their concretely determined and identifiable allotment.
In this case, the extrajudicial partition dated December 30, 1974, effectively dissolved the co-ownership. Sancho Manlapaz’s subsequent sale involved his exclusive, adjudicated property, not an undivided share in a common property. Consequently, Ernesta, as owner of a separate and distinct lot, was no longer a co-owner but a mere adjacent owner. The purpose of the legal redemption among co-owners is to reduce the number of participants until the community is extinguished; this purpose ceases once partition has been effected. Therefore, the trial court erred in applying Articles 1620 and 1623. The petition was granted, and the order allowing redemption was reversed.