GARCIA vs.

CALALIMAN April 17, 1989

FACTS: Respondents claim that the 30-day period prescribed in Article 1088 for petitioners to exercise the right to legal redemption had already elapsed and that the requirement of Article 1088 that notice must be in writing is deemed satisfied because written notice would be superfluous, the purpose of the law having been fully served when petitioner Garcia went to the Office of the Register of Deeds and was for himself, read and understood the contents of the Deeds of Sale. HELD: The Court took note of the fact that the registration of the deed of sale as sufficient notice of sale under the provision of Section 51 of Act No. 496 applies only to registered lands and has no application whatsoever to a case where the property involved is unregistered land. If the intention of the law had been to include verbal notice or nay other means of information as sufficient to give the effect of this notice, then there would have been no necessity or reasons to specify in Article 1088 that the said notice be made in writing for, under the old law, a verbal notice or information was sufficient. In the interpretation of a related provision (Article 1623) written notice is indispensable , actual knowledge of the sale acquired in some other manners by the redemptioner, notwithstanding. He or she is still entitled to written notice, as exacted by the Code, to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and its validity, and to quiet any doubt that the alienation is not definitive. The law not having provided for any alternative method of notifications remains exclusive, thought the Code does not prescribed any particular form of written notice nor any distinctive method for written notification of redemption. ____________________ What are the requirements for the exercise of such right? 1. Written notice to the co-heirs by the vendor 2. Exercise of right within one month from receipt thereof. Requirement of Written Notice The article gives the co-heirs the right of redemption, which can be exercised within one month from written notice to them by the vendor. Written notice therefore is required; without it the period does not commence to run. The SC has, as a rule, interpreted this requirement of written notice strictly. Garcia v. Calaliman Written notice is indispensable, actual knowledge of the sale acquired in some other manners by the redemptioner,

notwithstanding. He or she is still entitled to written notice to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and its validity, and to quiet any doubt that the alienation is not definitive. The law not having provided for any alternative, the method of notifications remains exclusive, though the Code does not prescribe any particular form of written notice nor any distinctive method for written notification of redemption. The same rule is laid down in Art1620 which applies where the co-ownership covers specific property. While