Barcellano v. Bañas

G.R. No. 165287 (September 14, 2011)

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over the right of legal redemption concerning a property owned by Bartolome BaAas, which was inherited by his heirs, including Dolores BaAas. The property in question is Lot 4485, PLS-722-D, located in Hindi, Bacacay, Albay. Vicente Medina, the owner of an adjoining lot, offered to sell his property to the heirs of Bartolome BaAas on March 17, 1997. Crispino Bermillo, representing the BaAas heirs, agreed to the sale, which was to occur after the harvest season.

However, on April 3, 1997, Medina sold the property to Armando Barcellano for P60,000. The BaAas heirs learned of the sale the following day and expressed their intention to redeem the property, but Medina informed them that a deed of sale had already been executed. The heirs did not tender the redemption amount to Medina.

On April 5, 1997, the BaAas heirs sought assistance from the Office of the Barangay Council, but Medina did not attend the proceedings. A subsequent meeting on April 9, 1997, between the BaAas heirs and Barcellano failed to resolve the dispute, leading to the issuance of a Certification to File Action by the Lupon.

Dolores BaAas filed an action for legal redemption on October 24, 1997, but withdrew it on February 5, 1998, citing economic difficulties. On March 11, 1998, she filed another action for legal redemption, which Barcellano opposed, arguing that the BaAas heirs failed to comply with the requirements of Article 1623 of the New Civil Code regarding the exercise of the right of redemption.

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the BaAas heirs' complaint on March 15, 2000, for failing to make a formal offer to redeem and for not filing the action with the redemption price within the required 30-day period. The BaAas heirs appealed this decision.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the BaAas heirs properly exercised their right of legal redemption under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code.
2. Whether the filing of a complaint before the Barangay Council constituted sufficient notice to Barcellano and Medina regarding the BaAas heirs' intention to redeem the property.
3. The necessity of a written notice for the exercise of the right of redemption.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Barcellano):

  • Barcellano contended that the BaAas heirs did not comply with the requirements of Article 1623, which mandates a written notice for the exercise of the right of redemption. He argued that the absence of a formal offer to redeem and the failure to tender payment within the 30-day period invalidated their claim.
  • He also asserted that the appellate court erred in considering the Barangay complaint as a valid exercise of the right of redemption.

• Respondent (BaAas):

  • The BaAas heirs argued that their actions, including the filing of a complaint with the Barangay Council, constituted sufficient notice of their intent to redeem the property. They maintained that the lack of a written notice did not invalidate their right to redeem, as they had expressed their intention to do so.
  • They contended that the requirement for a formal offer and tender of payment was not necessary since they had initiated legal proceedings within the 30-day period.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, granting the BaAas heirs the right to redeem the property. The appellate court held that the filing of the complaint before the Barangay Council served as notice to Barcellano and Medina of the BaAas heirs' intention to redeem. It ruled that the requirement for a formal offer and tender of payment was not applicable in this case, as the BaAas heirs had already initiated legal action.

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, emphasizing the necessity of a written notice under Article 1623. The Court reiterated that without a written notice, the 30-day period for exercising the right of redemption does not commence. It cited previous jurisprudence establishing that actual knowledge of the sale does not substitute for the required written notice.

The Court clarified that the strict requirement for written notice is intended to eliminate uncertainties regarding the sale and its terms. It distinguished the case from previous rulings that allowed for exceptions based on peculiar circumstances, asserting that such exceptions did not apply in this instance.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The requirement for a written notice under Article 1623 of the New Civil Code is mandatory for the exercise of the right of legal redemption.
2. Actual knowledge of a sale does not suffice to trigger the 30-day period for redemption if no written notice is provided.
3. The filing of a complaint with the Barangay Council can serve as an indication of intent to redeem but does not replace the necessity for written notice.