Spouses Si vs CA [G.R. No. 122047] Case Digest

 Spouses Si vs CA

G.R. No. 122047

 

Facts:

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. Annotated in the title is the total cancellation of said title by virtue of the Deed of Sale, Executed by Cresenciana Alejo (attorney-in-fact of Crisostomo Armada) in favor of Anita Si the 113.34 sq meters of the said property.

Spouses Armada filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed of Sale and Reconveyance of Title with Damages, against herein petitioners Anita and Serafin Si and Conrado Isada, brother-in-law of Cresenciana. 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 and that 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.

 

Issue:

Whether or not Spouses Armada have the right of redemption to the subject property.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

Notably, every portion conveyed and transferred to the three sons was definitely described and segregated and with the corresponding technical description (sic). In short, this is what we call extrajudicial partition. Moreover, every portion belonging to the three sons has been declared for taxation purposes with the Assessor's Office of Pasay City on September 21, 1970. 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. The fact that the three portions are embraced in one certificate of title does not make said portions less determinable or identifiable or distinguishable, one from the other, nor that dominion over each portion less exclusive, in their respective owners. Hence, no right of redemption among co-owners exists."