SI V CA HELD:
342 SCRA 653
FACTS:
 The property in dispute originally belonged belonged to Escolastica, wife of Severo
Armada Sr.
 During the lifetime of the spouses, the property was transferred to their children
Crisostomo married to Cresenciana, Jose married to Remedios and Dr. Severo, single.
 By virtue of a deed of sale. Crisostomo through his attorney-in-fact conveyed the land
to Anita Si for P75 000 thousand pesos
Jose Armada and his wife filed a complaint for the annulment of the deed of sale.
 The complaint alleged that Conrado Isada (Cresenciana’s brother-in-law) sold
Crisostomo's share by making it appear that Cresenciana, the attorney-in-fact of her
husband, is a Filipino citizen, residing with Isada
 By this time, Crisostomo and Cresenciana had migrated and were already citizens of
the United States of America.
 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 Jose knew of the misrepresentations of Conrado.
 Jose and Severo, Jr., had no written notice of the sale; and that all upon learning of the
sale to the spouses Si they filed a complaint for reconveyance claiming that they had a
right of redemption
Si alleged that:
 Escolastica, with the consent of her husband executed three separate deeds of sale
conveying the property to Severo, Crisostomo and Jose
 Petitioners contend that since the property was already three distinct parcels of land,
there was no longer co-ownership among the brothers.
 Jose and Severo, Jr. had no right of redemption when Crisostomo sold his share to the
spouses Si.
 Petitioners point out that it was only because the Armada brothers failed to submit the
necessary subdivision plan to the Office of the Register of Deeds in Pasay City that
separate titles were not issued
RTC, ruled in favor of the Si’s and dismissed the complaint
CA, reversed the trial court’s decision
 Stating that the portion sold in the deed of sale does not indicate the area sold
 No evidence was presented to show that the Register of Deeds issued TCT on the basis
of the said deeds of Sale
 Furthermore, the evidence on record shows that the Deed of Absolute Sale the portion
sold was the 'undivided one hundred thirteen & 34/100 (113.34) square meters' of the
parcel of land
o what was sold to defendants are still undetermined and unidentifiable, as the
area sold remains a portion of the whole
 They were not notified of the said sale
The sale by a co-owner of his share in the undivided property is not invalid, but shall not be
recorded in the Registry Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the Vendor that he has
given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners."
ISSUE: Whether private respondents are co-owners who are legally entitled to redeem the
lot under Article 1623 of the Civil Code
NO
The lot in question had already been partitioned when their parents executed three (3) deed of
sales
 Every portion conveyed and transferred to the three sons was definitely described and
segregated and with the corresponding technical description.
o It was extrajudicially partitioned
 Every portion belonging to the three sons has been declared for taxation purposes with
the Assessor's Office of Pasay City
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.
Hence, no right of redemption among co-owners exists
 Respondents cannot deny that they have knowledge of such sale, as they were properly
notified
 Reacting to such knowledge and notification they wrote defendant Dr. Crisostomo
Armada “Well you are the king of yourselves, and you can sell your share of Levereza”
 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.
 But where the co-owners had actual notice of the sale at the time thereof and/or
afterwards, a written notice of a fact already known to them, would be superfluous.
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
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. This
situation makes inapplicable the provision on the right of redemption of a co-owner in the Civil
Code, as follows:
Art. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty
days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be.
The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an
affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners The
right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners."