Barcellano vs Banas

FACTS: Respondent Dolores Bans, an heir of Bartolome Bans 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 Bans 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 Bans
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 Bans heirs failed to
exercise their right to redemption within the period provided in article 1623 of NCC. On appeal, such
ruling was reversed.

ISSUE: W/N the RTC decision to deny the Bans heirs of their right of legal redemption is valid

HELD: The court denied the petition, and affirmed the appellate court decision granting the Bans
heirs the right to redeem the subject property. The decision was based on the provisions of article
1623 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 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 deed of
sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an af davit 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 a
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.