Title
Spouses Si vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 122047
Decision Date
Oct 12, 2000
A disputed Pasay City property, partitioned among heirs, was sold without written notice. SC ruled partition valid, co-ownership terminated, and sale upheld due to actual notice and good faith.
right of redemption
partitioned
written notice
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 122047)

Factual Background

The disputed parcel consisted of 340 square meters in San Jose District, Pasay City originally titled to Escolastica, wife of Severo Armada, Sr., under Transfer Certificate of Title No. (17345) 2460. On October 2, 1954, three separate deeds of sale conveyed distinct portions to the three sons, but a single title, TCT No. 16007, was later issued in the names of Dr. Crisostomo R. Armada, Jose R. Armada, and Dr. Severo R. Armada, Jr., reflecting respective shares of 113.34, 113.33, and 113.33 square meters. In late March 1979 a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Cresenciana V. Alejo as attorney‑in‑fact for Crisostomo conveyed the 113.34 share to Anita Bonode Si for P75,000, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 24751 was issued in the name of Anita Si. The sale was brokered by Conrado Isada.

Trial Court Proceedings

On April 15, 1980, Spouses Jose Armada and Remedios Almanzor filed a complaint for annulment of deed of sale and reconveyance of title with damages against petitioners and Conrado Isada, alleging misrepresentations and lack of notice to co‑owners, and asserting a right of redemption under Art. 1623. After trial the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City found that the 1954 deeds effected an extrajudicial partition and that each son’s portion was concretely determined and separately identifiable. The trial court dismissed the complaint on August 29, 1989 and ordered costs against the plaintiffs.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in a decision dated March 25, 1994. The appellate court held that TCT No. 16007 did not reflect the physical subdivisions described in the 1954 deeds and that the portion sold by Cresenciana was an undivided share of the whole. Relying on Art. 1623, the Court of Appeals concluded that the sale of an undivided share is not to be recorded unless accompanied by an affidavit that written notice was given to possible redemptioners, and it annulled the sale, ordered cancellation of the relevant title, revival of the prior title, allowed the plaintiffs to redeem Crisostomo’s share within thirty days of notice, and awarded moral damages and attorney’s fees.

Motions and Procedural Posture

Petitioners received the Court of Appeals decision on August 29, 1994. A motion for reconsideration was filed on October 14, 1994 but was denied as untimely on November 21, 1994. Petitioners then filed a motion for new trial under Rule 53, Sec. 1 on December 5, 1994, proffering newly discovered evidence consisting of TCT No. (17345) 2460 annotated to show cancellation by virtue of the three deeds of sale. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for new trial on March 24, 1995 as barred by finality. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of that resolution was also denied, prompting the present certiorari petition under Rule 45.

Issues Presented

The Supreme Court framed the principal issues as whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and motion for new trial, whether private respondents were co‑owners legally entitled to redeem under Art. 1623, and whether the award of moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs was proper. The pivotal legal question was whether the purchased share was an undivided portion subject to the statutory right of redemption.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioners maintained that the 1954 deeds effected an extrajudicial partition rendering each portion separately identifiable and ending co‑ownership, so that Jose and Severo, Jr., had no right of redemption when Crisostomo sold his portion to petitioners. Petitioners argued that the failure to obtain separate technical descriptions from the Register of Deeds did not negate the partition. Private respondents contended that TCT No. 16007 reflected joint ownership of an undivided parcel and that the sale was of an undetermined undivided share; they asserted the protection afforded by Art. 1623 and that written notice to co‑owners was required and absent.

Supreme Court's Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It annulled and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 25, 1994 and its challenged resolutions of March 24, 1995 and September 6, 1995. Civil Case No. 8023‑P was dismissed for lack of merit, and the August 29, 1989 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 113, was reinstated. The Court did not remit the case to the Court of Appeals for further factual findings.

Supreme Court's Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed the factual record and concluded that the trial court correctly found an extrajudicial partition effected by the 1954 deeds, with each son’s portion concretely determined and identifiable despite issuance of a single certificate of title. The Court held that where distinct portions have been physically divided and are separately identifiable, co‑ownership has terminated and the right of preemption under Art. 1623 does not apply. The Court further observed that private respondent Jose Armada had actual notice of the intended sale, as evidenced by a letter dated February 22, 1979, and reiterated the rule that co‑owners who have actual

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms