CO-OWNERSHIP

Legal Provisions
Article 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be
exercised except within thirty (30) 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.
There is no co-ownership where the portions of the property are concretely
determined and identifiable, though not yet technically described, or that
said portions are still embraced in one certificate of title. (Noceda v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 119730, Sept. 2, 1999)
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining
owners.
- When a co-owner of the property in question executed a deed of
partition and on the strength thereof obtained the cancellation of the title in
the name of their predecessor and the issuance of a new one wherein he
appears as the new owner of the property, the statute of the limitations
started to run for the purposes of the action instituted by the latter seeking a
declaration of existence of the co-ownership and of their rights thereunder.
(Delima vs. CA, 201 SCRA 641)
THERE IS CO-OWNERSHIP WHENEVER THE OWNERSHIP OF
AN UNDIVIDED THING OR RIGHT BELONGS TO DIFFERENT
PERSONS.(Par. (1) of Article 484 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines)
ANY ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS MAY BRING AN ACTION IN
EJECTMENT. (Article 487 of the New Civil Code)
NOTE: The ejectment case must be brought by one co-owners for and in
behalf of other co-owners.
- Co-owners may of course litigate in their individual capacities (Smith vs.
Lopez, 5 Phil. 78)

- There is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different

people are already concretely determined and identifiable, even if not yet
technically described. (Dela Cruz vs. Cruz, L-27759, April 17, 1970)
The oral agreement for the partition of the property under co-ownership is
valid, binding and enforceable on the parties, more so, when they have
actually partitioned the estate among themselves and performed acts of
ownership in regard to their respective portions therein. (Cruscillo vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, GR No. 65416, October 26, 1999)
Sale of co-owned property:
The sale of the entire property under co-ownership by one co-owner without
the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void. However, only the
rights of the co-owner/seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a coowner of the property. (Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. vs. Court
of Appeals, GR No. 124262, October 12, 1999)
A co-owner may sell, alienate or mortgage his ideal share in the property
held in common, but the alienation or mortgage is limited to that portion that
may be allotted to him upon termination of the co-ownership. (Reyes vs.
Concepcion, 190 SCRA 171)
A co-owners right to redeem may be invoked only after the shares of the
other co-owners are sold to a third party or a stranger to the co-ownership.
(Reyes vs.Concepcion, 190 SCRA 171)
A co-owner has no pre-emptive right to purchase the pro-indiviso shares of
his co-owners. (Reyes vs. Concepcion, 190 SCRA 171)
True, the right to redeem is granted not only to the original co-owners, but
also to all those who subsequently acquire their respective shares while the
community subsists. However, it must be stressed that this right of
redemption is available only when part of the co-owned property is sold to a
third person. Otherwise put, the right to redeem referred to in Article 1620
applies only when a portion is sold to a non-co-owner. (Oscar C.
Fernandez, et.al. vs. Sps. Carlos, et.al. G.R. No. 143868, November 14,
2002)

Remedy:
The proper action of non-selling co-owner in this case is not to annul the
sale nor to recover possession of the property from a third person, but to
partition the entire property if it remains in the possession of the co-owners
who possessed and administered it. The action for partition is imprescriptible
under Article 494 of the New Civil Code. (Tomas Claudio Memorial
College, inc. vs. CA, ibid)
Effects:
After the physical division of the lot among the brothers, the community
ownership terminated; and the right of pre-emption or redemption for each
brother was no longer available. (Sps. Si vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
122047, October 12, 2000)
It was held that after the physical division of the lot among the brothers, the
community ownership terminated, and the right of preemption and
redemption for each brother was no longer available. (Del Rosario vs.
Bansil, 179 SCRA 662; Caro vs. CA, 113 SCRA 10; Caram vs. CA,
101 Phil. 315)
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. (Dela Cruz vs. Cruz, 32 SCRA
307)
Prescription did not run in favor of Davons heirs except from the time that
they repudiated the co-ownership and made the repudiation known to the
co-owners. (Ceniza vs. CA, 181 SCRA 552)
Requirement of notice:
Co-owners with actual notice of the sale are not entitled to written notice. A
written notice is a formal requisite to make certain that the co-owners have
actual notice of the same to enable them to exercise their right of redemption
within the limited period of thirty days. But were the co-owners had actual
notice of the same at the time thereof and/or afterwards, a written notice of a
fact already known to them would be a superfluous. The statute does not

demand what is unnecessary. (Sps. Serafin and Anita Si vs. CA, et.al., GR
No. 122047, October 12, 2000)