G.R. No. 219556 . September 14, 2021.
HERMELINA RAMA AND BABY RAMA LAURON, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES MEDARDO NOGRA AND PURITA NOGRA AND SPOUSES RICARDO RAMA AND MARILES RAMA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves an undivided portion of a lot registered under the Heirs of Felix Rama, including petitioner Hermelina Rama and respondent Ricardo Rama. On September 10, 1992, Ricardo sold his one-fourth share to respondents Spouses Medardo and Purita Nogra under a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 13, 2001. Petitioners claimed they had no knowledge of this sale until conciliation proceedings at the barangay on July 25, 2007 and September 9, 2007, where Ricardo and the Spouses Nogra confirmed the sale. Hermelina offered to redeem the property, but the offer was rejected. On September 26, 2007, Ricardo gave petitioners a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale. Petitioners filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Redemption, and Other Reliefs on October 16, 2007, and consigned the redemption price on October 26, 2007.
Spouses Nogra claimed Ricardo gave written notice of the sale to Hermelina on August 31, 1992, evidenced by a postal registry return slip, and that Hermelina had actual knowledge from the barangay proceedings and her prior involvement in an ejectment case against another co-owner, Lucina. They argued Hermelina’s right to redeem had lapsed.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that Hermelina was properly notified only on September 26, 2007, when she received a copy of the deed, and that the redemption was timely. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding that the written notice requirement under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code could be dispensed with because Hermelina had actual knowledge of the sale from the barangay conciliation and her involvement in the ejectment case, thus her redemption on October 16, 2007, was belated.

ISSUE

Whether Hermelina validly exercised her redemption right by the filing of the complaint before the RTC on October 16, 2007.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the RTC decision. The Court held that the written notice requirement under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code is mandatory and indispensable for the commencement of the 30-day period to exercise the right of legal redemption. Mere actual knowledge of the sale, acquired through other means such as barangay proceedings or prior involvement in related cases, does not satisfy the statute. The written notice must be given by the vendor to remove all uncertainties about the sale. Since Hermelina received the written notice (a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale) only on September 26, 2007, the 30-day redemption period commenced from that date. Her filing of the complaint on October 16, 2007, and the consignation of the redemption price on October 26, 2007, were within the 30-day period. The postal registry return slip alone, without the letter itself, was insufficient to prove written notice was given in 1992. The CA erred in dispensing with the written notice requirement based on Hermelina’s alleged actual knowledge.