FACTS:

Respondent Dolores Bañas is an heir of Bartolome Bañas who owns Lot 4485, located in Hindi, Bacacay, Albay. Adjoining this lot is the property of Vicente Medina, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. VH-9094. On March 17, 1997, Medina offered his property for sale to the Bañas heirs, including Dolores Bañas, Crispino Bermillo, and Isabela Bermillo-Beruela. Crispino Bermillo, as the representative of his family, agreed to the offer, and the sale was set to take place after the harvest season.

On April 3, 1997, Medina sold the property to petitioner Armando Barcellano for Php 60,000. The heirs found out about the sale the following day and went to Medina's house to inquire about it. Medina confirmed the sale and informed the heirs that there was already a deed of sale executed between the parties. The heirs expressed their intention to redeem the property, but Medina stated that they failed to tender the redemption amount of Php 60,000.

Feeling aggrieved, the heirs sought the assistance of the Barangay Council. On April 9, 1997, the heirs and Barcellano went to the Barangay Council to settle the dispute. Barcellano expressed his willingness to sell the property for a higher price of Php 90,000, but the parties could not agree on the price. Due to the failure to settle the dispute, the Barangay Council issued a Certification to File Action.

On October 24, 1997, Dolores Bañas filed an action for Legal Redemption before the Regional Trial Court. However, the petition was withdrawn on February 5, 1998, citing the worsening economic situation in the country. On March 11, 1998, Dolores Bañas, represented by Bermillo, filed another action for Legal Redemption. Barcellano opposed the action, arguing that Bañas failed to exercise her right within the period provided by law.

The trial court dismissed the complaint of the Bañas heirs on March 15, 2000, for their failure to comply with the condition precedent of making a formal offer to redeem and for failure to file an action in court with the consignation of the redemption price within the 30-day period.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court and granted the heirs the right to redeem the property. The Court of Appeals considered the filing of the complaint before the Barangay Council as a notice to Barcellano and Medina of the heirs' intention to exercise their right of redemption. The appellate court also ruled that a formal offer to redeem and consignation are necessary only if the redemptioner wants to redeem the property in the future. The filing of a case within the 30-day redemption period renders the tender of payment and consignation inconsequential.

Barcellano now questions the ruling of the appellate court, claiming that it is contrary to the admitted facts and applicable jurisprudence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether a written notice is necessary for the exercise of the right of legal pre-emption or redemption under Art. 1623 of the New Civil Code.

2. Whether the actual notice of the sale of the property satisfies the requirement of written notice.

3. When did the 30-day period of redemption begin?

4. Whether the co-heirs were duly informed of the sales and whether they had the opportunity to exercise their right of redemption.

5. Whether the strict requirement of written notice of the sale should be set aside due to the peculiar circumstances of the case.

RULING:

1. The Court held that a written notice is necessary for the exercise of the right of legal pre-emption or redemption under Art. 1623 of the New Civil Code. The purpose of the written notice is to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and conditions, and to ensure that all possible redemptioners are duly notified.

2. The Court emphasized that actual notice of the sale does not satisfy the requirement of written notice. The statute explicitly requires a written notice, thus the method of notification prescribed is exclusive.

3. The Court found that the 30-day period of redemption began sometime between the dates of the sale and the filing of the complaint for redemption. The right of redemption had already been extinguished because the period for its exercise had expired.

4. The co-heirs were undeniably informed of the sales, although no notice in writing was given to them. The 30-day period for redemption began and ended during the 14 years between the sales and the filing of the complaint for redemption. The co-heirs failed to exercise their right of redemption within this period.

5. The Court held that there is an exception to the strict requirement of written notice for redemption, but it is only applicable under extraordinary circumstances. In this case, the exception cannot be applied because the co-heirs had actual knowledge of the sales and the requirement of written notice is clear in the law.

PRINCIPLES:

• The right of legal pre-emption or redemption under Art. 1623 of the New Civil code requires a written notice to be given to the possible redemptioners.

• The purpose of the written notice is to ensure that all possible redemptioners are duly notified and to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and conditions.

• Actual notice of the sale does not satisfy the requirement of written notice.

• The 30-day period of redemption begins upon the written notice or when the possible redemptioners are actually informed of the sale.

• The doctrine of laches applies when a party neglects to make an inquiry or fails to exercise a right within a reasonable time, despite readily available means of ascertaining the truth.

• When the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation. There is only room for application. Interpretation should only be resorted to where a literal interpretation would be impossible, absurd, or would lead to injustice.

• The requirements of the law should be strictly adhered to, especially when it comes to the exercise of rights such as redemption.