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.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J .:
the property in dispute- a certain parcel of land, originally belonged to
Escolastica, wife of Severo Armada, Sr. During the lifetime of the spouses,
the property was transferred to their children and the Registry of Deeds,
Pasay City, issued TCT No. 16007 in the names of the three sons: DR.
CRISOSTOMO R. ARMADA,; JOSE R. ARMADA, and DR. SEVERO R. ARMADA, Jr,
Annotated also in the title is the total cancellation of said title "... by virtue of
the Deed of Sale, conveying certain portions of the property in favor of SI.
spouses Jose and Remedios Almanzor, filed a complaint for Annulment of
Deed of Sale and Reconveyance of Title with Damages, against spouses Si
and Isada. Isada brokered the sale.
The complaint alleged that Conrado Isada sold Crisostomo's share by
making it appear that Cresenciana, the attorney-in-fact of her husband is a
Filipino citizen, residing with Isada in Quezon City. By this time, Crisostomo
and Cresenciana had migrated and were already citizens of the United
States. It also stated that when petitioners registered the deed of absolute
sale they inserted the phrase "... and that the co-owners are not interested in
buying the same in spite of notice to them.", and that petitioners knew of the
misrepresentations of Conrado. Further, the complaint alleged that the other
owners, Jose and Severo, Jr., had no written notice of the sale; and that all
upon learning of the sale to the spouses Si, private respondents filed a
complaint for annulment of sale and reconveyance of title with damages,
claiming they had a right of redemption.
the court ruled for petitioners, dismissing the complaint.
The CA reversed the decision of the trial court and ruling for private
respondents.
x x x
Hence, the present petition, The pivotal issue is whether private
respondents may claim the right of redemption under Art. 1623 of the
Civil Code.
The trial court found that the disputed land was not part of an undivided
estate. It held that the three deeds of absolute sale
[12]
technically described the
portion sold to each son. The portions belonging to the three sons were
separately declared for taxation purposes with the Assessor's Office of Pasay
City.
[13]
Jose's testimony that the land was undivided was contradicted by his
wife when she said they had been receiving rent from the property specifically
allotted to Jose.
[14]
More significantly, the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City
cancelled TCT 24751 and issued three new titles in favor of Armada, Jr.;
under the name of Anita Bonode Si,; and (3) in favour of Jose Armada,
However, the Court of Appeals' decision contradicted the trial court's
findings.
[18]

In instances when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are at
variance with those of the trial court, mistaken review of the evidence by the
SC is proper. It is our considered view now, that the trial court is correct.
After the physical division of the lot among the brothers, the community
ownership terminated, and the right of preemption or redemption for each
brother was no longer available.
[22]

Under Art. 484 of the Civil Code,
[23]
there is co-ownership whenever the
ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. There is
no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are
already concretely determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet
technically described.
[24]
This situation makes inapplicable the provision on the
right of redemption of a co-owner in the Civil Code.
Moreover, we note that private respondent Jose Armada was well
informed of the impending sale of Crisostomo's share in the land as evidenced
by a letter he wrote to Crisostomo Co-owners with actual notice of the sale are
not entitled to written notice. A written notice is a formal requisite to make
certain that the co-owners have actual notice of the sale to enable them to
exercise their right of redemption within the limited period of thirty days.