SPOUSES SI vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 122047; October 12, 2000

DOCTRINE

After physical division of a lot the community ownership is terminated and right of redemption
is no longer available.

FACTS

 Spouses Armada transferred their property to the names of their three sons namely,
Crisotomo, Jose and Severo. Crisostomo through Cresencia (atty-in-fact) executed a deed
of sale in favor Anita Si.

 Spouses Jose Armada (other brother) filed a complaint to annul the sale on the ground
that there was no written notice of such sale whereas the deed stated that “the co-owners
are not interested in buying the land”. Further, there was misrepresentation on the
citizenship of Cresencia is a Filipino citizen.

 Petitioners claimed that there was really no co-ownership since the parents executed three
deeds of sale assigning specific properties to the brothers. Since there is no-ownership it
follows that there is no right to redemption. Petitioners pointed out that it was only
because the brothers failed to submit a subdivision plan which is the reason why there is
only one certificate of title.

 Lower court dismissed the petition.

 CA reversed and said that co-ownership still exists and that the land was undivided.
Petitioners filed a motion for new trial on the basis that there was annotation at the back
of the original TCT due to the sale in favor of the brothers. CA denied because the
reglementary period had lapsed and the decision has become final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether or not private respondents are co-owners and that they are entitled to right of
redemption based on Art 1623 of NCC
RULING

No. Notably, every portion conveyed and transferred to the three sons was definitely described
and segregated and with the corresponding technical description (sic). In short, this is what we
call extrajudicial partition. Moreover, every portion belonging to the three sons has been
declared for taxation purposes with the Assessor's Office of Pasay City on September 21, 1970.
These are the unblinkable facts that the portion sold to defendant spouses Si by defendants
Crisostomo Armada and Cresenciana Armada was concretely determined and identifiable. The
fact that the three portions are embraced in one certificate of title does not make said portions
less determinable or identifiable or distinguishable, one from the other, nor that dominion over
each portion less exclusive, in their respective owners. Hence, no right of redemption among co-
owners exists."