Barcellano v Banas

Facts:

- On March 17, 1997, Medina offered to sell his lot to the adjoining owners of the property
–the Banas heirs. The sale was set to take place after the harvest season.
- On April 3, 1997 Medina sold the property to Barcellano for P60,000. When confronted
by the Bañas family, Medina pointed out that
o a) there was already a deed of sale between him and Barcellano
o b) the family failed to pay the redemption amount worth P60,000
- In the Katarungang Pambarangay, Barcellano told the Bañas heirs that they will be
willing to sell the property but at a higher price of P90,000. Because both parties cannot
settle on the price, the Lupon issued a Certification to File Action.

- On March 11, 1998, Bañas filed for Legal Redemption to which Barcellano responded
that he was able to comply with the provisions of Art. 1623 of the New Civil Code but
Bañas failed to exercise his right within the period provided by law.

- Trial court’s decision: Petition was dismissed for Bañas failed to comply with the
condition to make a formal offer to redeem and for failure to file an action in court
together with the consignation of the redemption price within 30 days.

- Court of Appeals decision: Bañas was granted the right to redeem the property. CA
claimed that Bañas filing a complaint before the Katarungang Pambarangay should be
considered as a notice to Barcellano and Medina that they were exercising their right of
redemption over the subject property. The court also ruled that the tender of payment
and consignation become inconsequential when the redemptioner files a case to redeem
the property within the 30-day period.

Issue:

Should the Bañas family have received a written notice in pursuant of Article 1623 of the
New Civil Code?

Ruling:

Yes. The law is clear. There must first be a written notice to the Banas family.

Art. 1623. 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 affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all
possible redemptioners.
Nothing in the records and pleadings submitted by the parties showed that there was a written
notice sent to the respondents. Without a written notice, the period of thirty days within which the
right of legal pre-emption may be exercised, does not start. The Bañas family has a perfect right of
redemption and was never in danger of losing such right even if there was no redemption
complaint filed with the barangay, no tender of payment or no consignation.

Despite actual knowledge, the person having the right to redeem is STILL entitled to a written
notice. If the law found that verbal notice or any other means of information were sufficient, it
would not have been necessary to specify in the article that aforementioned notice must be in
writing.