Legal Redemption

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 Banās, an heir of Bartolome Banās owned a lot in Bacacay, Albay.

Adjoining the said lot is a property owned by Vicente Medina. In 1997, Medina offered his lot for sale to
the owners of the adjoining lots. The property was eventually sold to Armando Barcellano. The heirs of
Banās contested the sale, and conveyed their intention to redeem the property. However, according to
Medina, the deed of sale has been executed.

There was also mention that the Banās heirs failed to give the amount required by Medina for them to
redeem the lot. Action to redeem the property was filed before the RTC. It denied the petition on the
ground that the Banās heirs failed to exercise their right to redemption within the period provided in
article 1623 of NCC. On appeal, such ruling was reversed.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC decision to deny the Banās heirs of their right of legal redemption is valid.

Held:

The court denied the petition, and affirmed the appellate court decision granting the Banās

heirs the right to redeem the subject property. The decision was based on the provisions of article1623
NCC.

We need only to discuss the requirement of notice under Art. 1623 of the New Civil Code, which
provides that:The right of legal preemption 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
deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the
vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.

A written notice must be issued by the prospective vendor. Nothing in the record and pleadings
submitted by the parties showed that there was a written notice sent to the respondents. Without
written notice, the period of 30 days within which the right of legal redemption may be exercised does
not exist. In this case, the law was clear. A written notice by the vendor is mandatory.