SPOUSES SERAFIN SI AND ANITA BONODE SI, PETITIONERS

VS.
COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES JOSE ARMADA AND REMEDIOS ALMANZOR,
RESPONDENTS

GR NO. 122047 OCTOBER 12, 2000

QUISUMBING, J.
1. Property in question was previously owned by Escolastica, wife of Severo Armada, Sr.
During their lifetime the property was transferred to their 3 sons (Crisostomo married to
Cresencia Alejo; Jose Armada married to Remedios Almanzor and Severo, Jr.) under a
single TCT (no. 16007)
2. Annotated to the title was the total cancellation of the title by virtue of sale of Cresenciana
Alejo, as atty-in-fact of Crisostomo Armada, which conveyed113.34 square meters of the
property (not the whole property) in favor of Anita Si. TCT no. 24751 for said area.
3. Jose Armada and wife filed a complaint for annulment of Deed of Sale and
Reconveyance of Title with damages against sps. Si and Conrado Isada (the one who
brokered the sale)
4. Complaint alleged that Conrado made it appear the Cresenciana (atty in fact and spouse
ofCrisostomo) was a Filipino citizen and when the sale was registered, they inserted the
phrase co-owners are not interested in buying the same in spite of notice to them. Also
they alleged that the co-owners didnt get any written notice.
5. Spouses Si on the other hand claimed that the parents of the 3 sons conveyed the
property to them through 3 deeds of sales and that the deeds particularly described the
three portions given to each son. Because of this there was already no co-ownership and
that the 2 brothers had no right of redemption against Crisostomo.
6. Regional Trial court ruled for spouses Si. CA ruled in favor of Jose Armada, held that the
portion of land sold to the Sis were unidentifiable and undetermined and remained part of
the whole property. Sale by co-owner of undivided property is invalid and shall not be
recorded in the registry unless there is an affidavit that written notice was given to all
possible redemptioners. MR filed but filed out of time, filed for new trial which was also
denied. Hence this petition
ISSUE:
WON there was physical division of property (which would allow Crisostomo to sell his
portion).
1. YES. There was physical division when it was sold to the brothers Armada.
- Every portion conveyed and transferred to the 3 sons was definitely described and
segregated and with the corresponding technical description. In other words there
has been a Extrajudicial partition
- The portions were also declared for taxation purposes with the Assessors office in
Pasay.
- The fact that the 3 portions were embraced in one certificate does not make said
portion less determinable or identifiable or distinguishable, one from another, nor
that dominion over each portion less exclusive, in their respective owners.
- No right of redemption among co-ownership exists. In fact, after the physical
division of the lot, the community ownership terminated, and the right of
preemption and redemption for each brother was no longer available. (Art. 484.
no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already
concretely determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically
described.)
- It was also proven that Jose Armada was well informed of the impending sale of
Crisostomos share and even told his brother: Well you are the king of yourselves,
and you can sell your share of Leveriza. If co-owner had actual notice of sale, no
need for written notice, otherwise it would be superfluous to require it. (besides it

was already held that there was no co-ownership, hence, no right of redemption
obiter na ata to)
Held: Petition GRANTED. CA decision ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. RTC decision REINSTATED