G.R. No. 186269 ; February 15, 2012
SPOUSES ROMAN A. PASCUAL and MERCEDITA R. PASCUAL, et al., Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ANTONIO BALLESTEROS and LORENZA MELCHOR-BALLESTEROS, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a 1,539-square-meter parcel of land in Laoag City owned by three sets of owners with specified shares. Upon the death of spouses Melecio and Victoria Melchor, their share was inherited by their daughter, respondent Lorenza Melchor-Ballesteros. The respondents later acquired the share of another co-owner, Angela Melchor. Subsequently, the other co-owners, Margarita Corazon Mariano and her children, sold their share to petitioners Spouses Pascual and Francisco Pascual. The respondents, claiming to be co-owners, filed a complaint for legal redemption, asserting their right to redeem the sold portion under Article 1620 of the Civil Code. The petitioners countered that no co-ownership existed as the shares were already particularized and subdivided.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint. It ruled that while a co-ownership existed, the respondents failed to seasonably exercise their right of redemption within the 30-day period under Article 1623, as they had actual notice of the sale despite the lack of written notice. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding that the 30-day period had not commenced because the mandatory written notice from the seller was not received by the respondents. The CA thus allowed the redemption.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the respondents could still exercise their right of legal redemption despite their actual knowledge of the sale, in the absence of the written notice required under Article 1623 of the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court held that the issue raised was a pure question of law concerning the proper application of Article 1623. The provision states that the right of legal redemption must be exercised within thirty days from notice in writing by the vendor. The Court emphasized that the written notice requirement is mandatory and indispensable. Actual knowledge of the sale, whether through verbal information or other means, does not suffice to trigger the redemption period. The law’s clear and categorical language leaves no room for interpretation; the period begins to run only from receipt of a written notice from the seller.
Since it was undisputed that the respondents did not receive the requisite written notice of the sale from the vendor, the 30-day period had not commenced. Consequently, the respondents’ right of redemption was not yet extinguished, and they could still validly redeem the subject property from the petitioners. The Court reiterated that the written notice serves to remove all uncertainties regarding the sale’s terms and status, underscoring its mandatory nature for the protection of the redeeming co-owner.