Case Summary (G.R. No. 165287)
Relevant Facts
The case arises from a sequence of events initiated by Vicente Medina's offer to sell his property to the heirs of Bartolome BaAas. The heirs communicated their intention to redeem the property after Medina sold it to Barcellano for Php 60,000. Upon learning of the sale, the heirs attempted to assert their right of redemption but were informed by Medina that a deed of sale had already been executed.
Procedural History
On October 24, 1997, Dolores BaAas filed an action for legal redemption before the Regional Trial Court, but this was withdrawn on February 5, 1998. Subsequently, a new action was filed on March 11, 1998, which Barcellano opposed, arguing the BaAas heirs did not comply with the necessary conditions for redemption. The trial court dismissed the case on March 15, 2000, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision on February 26, 2004, allowing the BaAas heirs the right to redeem the property.
Legal Issues
The primary legal issue involves the interpretation of Article 1623 of the New Civil Code concerning the requirement for written notice of sale to the adjoining property owners. Barcellano contends that the lack of written notice meant that the heirs' right to redeem was extinguished.
Court of Appeals' Rulings
The appellate court held that the actions taken by the BaAas heirs constituted adequate notice of their intention to redeem and that the failure to render a formal offer and the lack of payment tender were not fatal to their claim. It interpreted the proceedings before the Barangay as initiating the legal redemption process.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Barcellano contended that written notice under Article 1623 was mandatory, asserting that actual notice did not suffice to commence the redemption period. He further argued that the appellate court misapplied Presidential Decree No. 1508, asserting that the proceedings before the Barangay did not equate to a valid exercise of the right of redemption.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the necessity of a written notice for the right of legal redemption to be exercised, citing established jurisprudence which defines this as an absolute requirement. The Court emphasized that the right to redeem will not commence
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 165287)
Case Background
- The case involves an appeal by Armando Barcellano (petitioner) against the Decision of the Court of Appeals favoring Dolores BaAas (respondent) regarding the right to redeem a property.
- The property in question is Lot 4485, PLS-722-D, originally owned by Bartolome BaAas, an ancestor of Dolores BaAas.
- Vicent Medina owned an adjoining property and offered to sell it to the heirs of Bartolome BaAas.
- Barcellano purchased the property from Medina before the heirs could exercise their right of redemption.
Procedural History
- Respondent BaAas and her co-heirs attempted to redeem the property but were informed by Medina that a sale had already taken place.
- The heirs filed a complaint before the Barangay Council to assert their right to redeem the property.
- The Regional Trial Court dismissed their complaint, stating the heirs did not comply with the conditions required for legal redemption.
- The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, granting the heirs the right to redeem the property.
Central Issues
- Barcellano’s appeal questions the applicability of the required written notice under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code.
- The main contention revolves around whether the lack of written notice