Facts:

The case involves Teofila Felices as the plaintiff-appellant and Francisco Colegado as the defendant-appellee. The events leading to the case began with the death of Felipe Felices on November 5, 1938, who left behind a homestead in Barrio Curry, Pili, Camarines Sur, covering approximately 21 hectares. Original Certificate of Title No. 73 was issued in Felipe's name. Following his death, five of his seven surviving children—Marta, Maria, Teofila, Silverio, and Pedro—physically partitioned the homestead among themselves, taking exclusive possession of their respective shares, although no individual titles were issued. On February 24, 1949, Maria Felices sold her share to Roman Iriola with a right of repurchase. The sale was executed with the consent of her siblings. In 1951, Silverio, Pedro, Marta, and Maria agreed to sell their shares to Francisco Colegado for P8,500, but knowing the prohibition against alienating homesteads within five years, they postponed the formal sa...

Facts:

1. Background of the Property
Felipe Felices died on November 5, 1938, leaving a 21-hectare homestead in Barrio Curry, Pili, Camarines Sur, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 73. The property was inherited by his seven children.

2. Physical Partition Among Heirs
After Felipe’s death, five of his children—Marta, Maria, Teofila, Silverio, and Pedro—physically partitioned the homestead. Each took exclusive possession of their respective shares, although no transfer certificates of title were issued in their individual names.

3. Maria Felices’ Conditional Sale
On February 24, 1949, Maria Felices sold her share to Roman Iriola under a pacto de retro (conditional sale). The deed was signed by her siblings, and Iriola took possession of the land.

4. Agreement to Sell to Francisco Colegado
In 1951, Maria, Silverio, Pedro, and Marta agreed to sell their shares to Francisco Colegado for P8,500.00. However, the sale could not be immediately executed due to the legal prohibition on alienating a homestead within five years from the issuance of the patent.

5. Repurchase of Maria’s Share
Colegado advanced the repurchase price to Maria to buy back her share from Iriola. Iriola refused, prompting the Felices siblings to consign the money with the court and file a case to compel Iriola to allow the repurchase.

6. Execution of Absolute Sale
On September 11, 1953, Maria, Marta, Silverio, and Pedro executed an absolute sale of their shares to Colegado.

7. Teofila’s Attempt to Redeem
In 1962, Teofila Felices informed Colegado of her intent to redeem Maria’s share, offering P2,053.61 as the redemption price. Colegado refused, leading Teofila to file a legal action to compel redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code.

8. Trial Court Decision
The trial court dismissed Teofila’s complaint, ruling that the physical partition of the homestead had terminated co-ownership among the heirs, and Teofila had no right to redeem Maria’s share.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Termination of Co-Ownership
   The physical partition of the homestead immediately after Felipe Felices’ death terminated the co-ownership among the heirs. Each heir became the exclusive owner of their respective share.

2. Inapplicability of Article 1088
   Article 1088 of the Civil Code, which allows co-heirs to redeem a share sold to a third party before partition, does not apply because the partition had already occurred.

3. No Right of Redemption Under Article 1620
   Article 1620 of the Civil Code, which allows co-owners to redeem shares sold to a third party, is also inapplicable. The sale of Maria’s share to Colegado occurred after the partition, and Teofila was no longer a co-owner of Maria’s share.

4. Colegado as Co-Owner
   Even if co-ownership had persisted, Colegado’s purchase of the shares of other siblings made him a co-owner of the homestead. Co-owners cannot exercise the right of legal redemption against each other.

The Court concluded that Teofila Felices had no legal basis to redeem Maria’s share from Colegado.