Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    01-Felices v. Colegado G.R. No. L-23374, (1970-09-30)

    Uploaded by

    wupwupwup
    1. A homestead was left by Felipe Felices to his five children after his death in 1938. The children physically partitioned the land among themselves. 2. Maria sold her share to Roman Iriola with the right to repurchase. The other siblings agreed to sell their shares absolutely to Francisco Colegado. 3. Teofila sued Francisco asserting her right as a co-owner to redeem the land that Maria sold. However, the court ruled that Teofila did not have the right to redeem as Francisco was also already a co-owner after purchasing the other siblings' shares.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    01-Felices v. Colegado G.R. No. L-23374, (1970-09-30)

    Uploaded by

    wupwupwup
    77 views1 page
    1. A homestead was left by Felipe Felices to his five children after his death in 1938. The children physically partitioned the land among themselves. 2. Maria sold her share to Roman Iriola with the right to repurchase. The other siblings agreed to sell their shares absolutely to Francisco Colegado. 3. Teofila sued Francisco asserting her right as a co-owner to redeem the land that Maria sold. However, the court ruled that Teofila did not have the right to redeem as Francisco was also already a co-owner after purchasing the other siblings' shares.

    Original Description:

    Hello

    Original Title

    01-Felices v. Colegado G.R. No. L-23374, [1970-09-30]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. A homestead was left by Felipe Felices to his five children after his death in 1938. The children physically partitioned the land among themselves. 2. Maria sold her share to Roman Iriola with the right to repurchase. The other siblings agreed to sell their shares absolutely to Francisco Colegado. 3. Teofila sued Francisco asserting her right as a co-owner to redeem the land that Maria sold. However, the court ruled that Teofila did not have the right to redeem as Francisco was also already a co-owner after purchasing the other siblings' shares.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    77 views1 page

    01-Felices v. Colegado G.R. No. L-23374, (1970-09-30)

    Uploaded by

    wupwupwup
    1. A homestead was left by Felipe Felices to his five children after his death in 1938. The children physically partitioned the land among themselves. 2. Maria sold her share to Roman Iriola with the right to repurchase. The other siblings agreed to sell their shares absolutely to Francisco Colegado. 3. Teofila sued Francisco asserting her right as a co-owner to redeem the land that Maria sold. However, the court ruled that Teofila did not have the right to redeem as Francisco was also already a co-owner after purchasing the other siblings' shares.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Concept of Co-ownership

    TEOFILA FELICES vs. FRANCISCO COLEGADO


    G.R. No. L-23374, September 30, 1970

    1. A homestead in Pili, Camarines Sur was left by Felipe Felices on November 5, 1938
    after he died. His five surviving children namely, Marta, Maria, Teofila, Silverio,
    and Pedro physically partitioned among themselves the homestead.
    2. Maria sold her share to Roman Iriola (Roman) with right of repurchase (con pacto
    de retro).
    3. Silverio, Pedro, Marta and Maria agreed to sell absolutely to Francisco Colegado
    (Francisco) their respective shares in the homestead.
    4. Roman refused to allow the repurchase. The Felices brothers and sisters except
    Teofila consigned the amount with the CFI of Camarines Sur.
    5. Maria, Marta, Silverio, Pedro and Francisco executed a deed of absolute sale.
    6. CFI ordered Roman Iriola to allow Maria to repurchase the property. Upon appeal,
    CA affirmed the decision of CFI.
    7. Teofila, thru her lawyer, addressed a letter to Francisco informing him of her
    desire to redeem the parcel of land sold to him by Maria. Francisco Colegado
    refused and Teofila deposited the amount for payment to the Clerk of Court.
    8. Teofila commenced an action against Francisco in the CFI asserting that being a
    co-owner, Francisco can be compelled to allow her to exercise the right of legal
    redemption, invoking the provision of Article 1620, Civil Code.
    9. Francisco maintains that Teofila is now precluded to redeem the land in question
    stating Article 1088, Civil Code and asserts that once a property is partitioned
    among the heirs the sale by any one of the heirs of his share to a third person
    cannot be the subject of redemption by his co-heirs.
    10. CFI rendered its decision dismissing the complaint, as well as defendant's
    counterclaim.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Teofila can exercise the right of legal redemption of the land
    pursuant to Art. 1620 and/or Art. 1088 of the Civil Code?

    RULING:
    NO. Art. 1088 of the Civil Code has NO APPLICATION in the present case because
    said article can only be availed of when a co-heir sells his share before the partition of the
    hereditary estate.

    Teofila has NO RIGHT TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY AS CO-OWNER under


    Article 1620. Co-ownership exists when the ownership of an undivided thing or right
    belongs to different persons. It is an inherent and peculiar feature of co-ownership that
    although the co-owners may have unequal shares in the common property, quantitatively
    speaking, each co-owner has the same right in a qualitative sense as any one of the other
    co-owners. In other words, every co-owner is the owner of the whole, and over the
    whole he exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a
    portion which is truly abstract, because until division is affected such portion is not
    concretely determined.

    When Francisco paid for the portion allotted to Maria, he was at that time not a
    stranger but already a co-owner of the homestead. Teofila can not redeem the land from
    Francisco because the latter and her had become co-owners, and as co-owners neither of
    them has the right of legal redemption against the other.

    WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against plaintiff-
    appellant.

    You might also like