ARMANDO BARCELLANO VS DOLORES BANAS

Where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for
interpretation

PONENTE: PEREZ

FACTS:

Respondent Dolores Banās, an heir of Bartolome Banās owned a lot in Bacacay,

Albay. Adjoining the said lot is a property owned by Vicente Medina. In 1997, Medina
offered his lot for sale to the owners of the adjoining lots. The property was eventually
sold to Armando Barcellano. The heirs of Banās contested the sale, and conveyed their
intention to redeem the property. However, according to Medina, the deed of sale has
been executed. There was also mention that the Banās heirs failed to give the amount
required by medina for them to redeem the lot. Action to redeem the property was filed
before the RTC. It denied the petition on the ground that the Banās heirs failed to
exercise their right to redemption within the period provided in article 1623 of NCC. On
appeal, such ruling was reversed.

ISSUE:

W/N the RTC decision to deny the Banās heirs of their right of legal redemption
is valid

HELD:

The court denied the petition, and affirmed the appellate court decision granting
the Banās heirs the right to redeem the subject property. The decision was based on the
provisions of article 1623 NCC. A written notice must be issued by the prospective
vendor. Nothing in the record and pleadings submitted by the parties showed that
there was a written notice sent to the respondents. Without a written notice, the period
of 30 days within which the right of legal redemption may be exercised does not exist.

In this case, the law was clear. A written notice by the vendor is mandatory.