This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-04-15 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Despite this, however, we still rule that petitioner could no longer invoke her right to redeem from private respondent for the exercise of this right "presupposes the existence of a co-ownership at the time the conveyance is made by a co-owner and when it is demanded by the other co-owner or co-owners."[42] The regime of co-ownership exists when ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.[43] By the nature of a co-ownership, a co-owner cannot point to specific portion of the property owned in common as his own because his share therein remains intangible.[44] As legal redemption is intended to minimize co-ownership,[45] once the property is subdivided and distributed among the co-owners, the community ceases to exist and there is no more reason to sustain any right of legal redemption.[46] | |||||