Dear PAO,
I bought a portion of a parcel of land from someone who owned one-third (1/3) of it by virtue of an intestate succession from her deceased parents. Upon buying it, the entire property was surveyed and subdivided under a duly approved subdivision plan. Thereafter, the portion I purchased was segregated, and a Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in my name. Subsequently, I filed a verified complaint for recovery of possession with damages against the brother of the seller who currently occupies the land. Two years after the Court ruled in my favor, the brother filed a complaint for legal redemption despite the fact that he had been notified of the sale when I filed an action for recovery of possession with damages against him. He claims that the law is absolute in requiring a written notice of the seller, from which the 30-day period for co-owners to exercise their right of legal redemption begins to run. Is he correct on this?
Procerlito
Dear Procerlito,
No, the brother of the seller is incorrect in claiming that the law absolutely requires a written notice from the seller to the co-owners before the 30-day period for legal redemption may commence.
In Antonio Azurin, Jr. and Rafael Azurin vs. Carlito Chua, G.R. No. 259662, April 23, 2025), penned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the Supreme Court cited Articles 1620 and 1623 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which provide:
“ART 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any of them, are sold to a third person...”
In relation to this provision, Article 1623 of the same code states:
“Article 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.”
From the aforementioned provisions, the Court explained that while a written notice is mandatory for the 30-day period of redemption to run, the form of such written notice need not conform to any particular format so long as it informs the co-owner of the validity, efficacy, and terms and conditions of the sale.
Furthermore, yielding to equity, the Court explained that while it was not abandoning the mandatory quality of the written notice requirement, it simply granted an exception to the strict requirement of written notice provided:
1. There is presence of peculiar circumstances that gave the co-owners sufficient knowledge of the sale and its particulars; and
2. Laches on the part of the redemptioners.
Therefore, in your case, it is clear that there were peculiar circumstances showing that the brother of the seller had sufficient knowledge of the sale and its particulars, and that laches had set in on his part. Aside from the fact that he was possessing the parcel of land when it was surveyed to segregate a portion, of such he also had actual notice of the sale when you filed an action for recovery of possession with damages against him. It cannot be denied that the moment the action was filed, he acquired actual knowledge of the sale between you and the seller, his sibling, as well as the sale’s particulars. In addition, Laches clearly bars the seller’s brother from claiming legal redemption. Despite having actual knowledge of the sale, he waited two years to act. Laches is not just about the lapse of time, but the inequity caused by his failure to exercise due diligence within a reasonable timeframe.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
