Several persons co-owned the land, and one of them sold her share to a third party, who was not among the existing co-owners.

More than six years later, two of the original co-owners exercised their right of redemption.

Under the law, a co-owner has the right to redeem the property sold to a third person within thirty days from written notice of the sale of the property. They argued that they were not given any written notice.

Therefore, despite the lapse of more than six years, they still had the right to redeem the property.

Are they correct? The Supreme Court ruled that “Here, it is undisputed that Adelaida and Antonio, Jr. et al. were co-owners of Lot 236. Adelaida sold her share in said co-ownership to the respondent, who is considered a third person under the law.”

According to the Tribunal, “This is precisely the factual scenario contemplated under Articles 1620 and 1623 of the Civil Code. Petitioners insist that the 30-day period had not begun to run against them because they were not given written notice of the sale between Adelaida and the respondent.”

They insist that the written notice requirement under Article 1623 does not contemplate notice through any other means.

They cite jurisprudence in support of their position. xxx In the oft-cited case of De Conejero v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained: “With regard to the written notice, we agree with petitioners that such notice is indispensable, and that, in view of the terms in which Article 1623 of the Philippine Civil Code is couched, mere knowledge of the sale, acquired in some other manner by the redemptioner, does not satisfy the statute. The written notice was obviously exacted by the Code to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and its validity, and to quiet any doubts that the alienation is not definitive.”

“The statute not having provided for any alternative, the method of notification prescribed remains exclusive. xxx At this juncture, it would be proper to address the Court’s June 2021 decision in Baltazar v. Miguel, where this Court elucidated that the written notice requirement under Article 1623 has been relaxed: xxx While it is true that the law requires written notice (Article 1623 ), it is equally true that the same provision does not prescribe any particular form of notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner.

“So long, therefore, as the latter is informed in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof, the 30 days for redemption start running, and the redemptioner has no real cause to complain.”

In the Conejero case, the SC ruled that the furnishing of a copy of the disputed deed of sale to the redemptioner was equivalent to the giving of written notice required by law in “a more authentic manner than any other writing could have done.”

(To be continued)