G.R. No. 165287 ; September 14, 2011
ARMANDO BARCELLANO, Petitioner, vs. DOLORES BAÑAS, represented by her son and Attorney-in-fact CRISPINO BERMILLO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Dolores Bañas is an heir of Bartolome Bañas, who owned Lot 4485, PLS-722-D in Hindi, Bacacay, Albay. Adjoining this lot was a property owned by Vicente Medina. On March 17, 1997, Medina offered to sell his lot to the adjoining owners, the heirs of Bartolome Bañas, including respondent. Crispino Bermillo, representing his family, agreed to the sale, which was to take place after the harvest season. However, on April 3, 1997, Medina sold the property to petitioner Armando Barcellano for ₱60,000.00. The Bañas heirs learned of the sale the next day and inquired with Medina, who confirmed it. The heirs conveyed their intention to redeem the property, but Medina informed them a deed of sale had already been executed. The heirs did not tender the redemption amount to Medina. The parties attempted to settle the dispute at the Barangay Council on April 5 and 9, 1997, but no settlement was reached, and a Certification to File Action was issued. On October 24, 1997, Dolores Bañas filed an action for Legal Redemption before the Regional Trial Court but withdrew it on February 5, 1998. On March 11, 1998, she filed another action for Legal Redemption. The trial court dismissed the complaint on March 15, 2000, for failure to comply with the condition precedent of making a formal offer to redeem and for failure to file an action in court with consignation of the redemption price within the 30-day reglementary period. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision on February 26, 2004, granting the heirs the right to redeem the property, ruling that the filing of a complaint before the Katarungang Pambarangay constituted notice and set in motion the judicial process of legal redemption, and that tender of payment and consignation were inconsequential when a case is filed within the 30-day period. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent validly exercised her right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code, specifically concerning the requirement of a written notice of sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the written notice required under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code is indispensable and mandatory. The provision states: “The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be.” The Court emphasized that mere knowledge of the sale, acquired in any other manner, does not satisfy the statute. The purpose of the written notice is to remove all uncertainty about the sale, its terms, and its validity. Since nothing in the records showed that a written notice was sent to the respondents (the adjoining owners), the 30-day period within which to exercise the right of legal redemption never commenced. The Court cited consistent jurisprudence, including Conejero v. Court of Appeals, Verdad v. Court of Appeals, and Gosiengfiao v. Court of Appeals, which uphold the mandatory character of the written notice. The Court distinguished the case from Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, where an exception was made due to peculiar circumstances establishing actual notice over a prolonged period, which were not present here. Consequently, the respondent’s right of redemption was not lost, and the period for its exercise had not even begun to run due to the lack of the mandatory written notice.