G.R. No. 232968 - Marina P. Clarete vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Field Investigation Unit a Mindanao Area Office ~~Arthur Cua Yap vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Field Investigation Unit a Mindanao Area Office ~~Arthur Cua Yap vs. Sandiganbayan and People

The property in dispute is a lot and building in Cebu City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 197-A1230 (T-3827).
The property was inherited by co-owners Paz Torres de Conejero and Enrique Torres from their deceased parents.

On September 15, 1949, Enrique Torres sold his undivided half interest in the property to the Raffinan spouses for P13,000, with an option to repurchase within one year.
After advances increased the vendees’ claims, and following the lapse of the one-year repurchase period, Enrique executed on April 3, 1951, a deed of absolute sale in favor of the Raffinans for P28,000.
Importantly, neither Paz Torres de Conejero (co-owner) nor her husband, Enrique Conejero, was informed of this absolute sale until August 19, 1952, when a copy of the deed (Exhibit "C") was shown to Conejero by his brother-in-law, Enrique Torres.

Upon learning of the sale, Enrique Conejero promptly made an offer to redeem his brother-in-law’s half interest, later increasing the offer from an initial amount to P29,000 and then to P34,000.
Petitioners (Paz Torres and Enrique Conejero) filed a complaint on October 4, 1952, in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking a declaration of their right to redeem Enrique Torres’s half interest.

The trial court characterized the deed of sale as an equitable mortgage and declared the petitioners entitled to redeem for P34,000.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision, ruling that the deed was a true sale and emphasizing that:

Legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code requires a written notice and valid tender of the redemption price within 30 days.
The petitioners’ offer—a check for P10,000 with a promise to pay the balance later—failed to constitute a valid tender of the full price (P28,000) as required by law.

Arguing that the lack of written notice meant their redemption right had not even begun to run.
Asserting that legal redemption does not require a full tender of the price, merely a demand to redeem.

The written notice requirement is indispensable and must follow the stipulated form in Article 1623.
A valid tender, amounting to the full redemption price, is mandatory and cannot be substituted by an offer involving installment payments or pledges for future funds.

Whether the fact that the petitioners received a copy of the deed on August 19, 1952, satisfies the statutory requirement of a written notice of sale under Article 1623 of the Civil Code.
Whether the notice given by Enrique Torres was effective in triggering the 30-day period for legal redemption.

Whether the redemption right may be preserved merely by a demand to allow redemption, without a complete tender of the redemption price.
Whether an offer involving partial payment (a check for P10,000 with a promise for the balance) can constitute a legally acceptable tender under the prevailing law.
The impact of the petitioners’ failure to file suit or validly consign the full redemption price within the required 30-day period.