Felices v. Colegado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Felipe Felices died leaving a 21-hectare homestead. His seven children, including Teofila Felices, physically partitioned the homestead among themselves shortly after his death, with each taking exclusive possession of their respective shares, although no new titles were issued. Maria Felices sold her share to Roman Iriola with right of repurchase (con pacto de retro). Subsequently, Maria, Marta, Silverio, and Pedro Felices agreed to sell their shares absolutely to Francisco Colegado. Colegado advanced the repurchase price for Maria's share from Iriola. A legal dispute arose when Iriola refused to allow the repurchase, leading to a case filed by the Felices siblings and Colegado to compel Iriola. In this case, Teofila Felices was joined as a defendant for refusing to join as a plaintiff. On September 11, 1953, Maria, Marta, Silverio, and Pedro Felices executed a deed of absolute sale of their shares to Francisco Colegado. A decision in the earlier case ordered Iriola to allow Maria to repurchase her share. After Iriola's death, his heirs surrendered possession of the land to Colegado upon payment of the repurchase price. On September 7, 1962, Teofila Felices offered to redeem Maria's share from Colegado, which was refused. Procedural History: Teofila Felices filed a complaint against Francisco Colegado for legal redemption of Maria Felices' share, invoking Article 1620 of the Civil Code. Colegado argued that Article 1088 of the Civil Code applied, and that after partition, co-heirs could not redeem shares sold to third parties. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the physical partition extinguished co-ownership and thus Teofila had no right of redemption. The counterclaim was also dismissed. The Petition: Teofila Felices appealed the trial court's decision, questioning whether she could exercise the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 or 1088 of the Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether Teofila Felices may exercise the right of legal redemption over the land sold by Maria Felices under Article 1088 of the Civil Code. Whether Teofila Felices may exercise the right of legal redemption as a co-owner under Article 1620 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, dismissing the complaint. It held that Teofila Felices has no right to redeem the property as co-owner under Article 1620 of the Civil Code because the physical partition of the homestead among the heirs extinguished the co-ownership over specific portions. Furthermore, even if co-ownership still existed, Teofila could not redeem the land from Colegado because Colegado, having acquired the shares of other siblings, was already a co-owner and not a stranger.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Article 1088 of the Civil Code is inapplicable because it pertains only to the sale of hereditary rights to a stranger 'before the partition.' This provision applies to the hereditary right in an abstract sense before any distribution of the estate has occurred. Applying the ruling in Castro v. Castro, the Court noted that once distribution or partition has taken place, even if the property remains in a state of pro-indiviso, the heirs cease to be considered simply as co-heirs and become co-owners. In the present case, the heirs admitted to a physical partition immediately after their father's death in 1938. Consequently, any subsequent sale of a share is governed by the rules on co-ownership rather than the rules on the sale of hereditary rights under Article 1088. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that Teofila Felices had no right of redemption under Article 1620 because the co-ownership had already ceased due to the physical partition. Co-ownership exists only when the ownership of an undivided thing belongs to different persons, where each owner has a purely 'abstract' portion. Here, the heirs had already divided the homestead and taken exclusive possession of specific, identifiable segments, such as the northernmost part occupied by Maria and later Roman Iriola. Citing De la Cruz v. Cruz, the Court emphasized that the fact that portions are still embraced in one certificate of title does not prevent the cessation of co-ownership if the portions are determined and identifiable. Furthermore, since Colegado had already purchased the shares of Silverio, Pedro, and Marta in 1953, he was already a co-owner of the homestead by the time he acquired Maria's portion in 1962. Under the doctrine in Viola v. Roura & Tecson, the right of legal redemption cannot be exercised by one co-owner against another co-owner, as the right is intended only to exclude strangers from the community of interest.
Main Doctrine
After a physical partition of a homestead among heirs, where each heir takes exclusive possession of their respective aliquot share, the co-ownership ceases, and the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code is no longer applicable to the sale of such a share by one heir to a third person, as the selling heir is no longer a co-owner of that specific portion. Furthermore, if a co-owner subsequently acquires the share of another co-owner, they do not gain a right of redemption against the original co-owners.