We cannot sacrifice substance for technicality.

The Supreme Court, based on these cases, has relaxed the strict requirement of notice of sale and held that a written notice is unnecessary when the party is established to have actual notice of the sale.

“Accordingly, it cannot be concluded, on the basis of these two cases, that the Court has abandoned its consistent ruling that the written notice requirement under Article 1623 is mandatory and indispensable. It is proper to interpret the written notice requirement under Article 1623 as mandatory…

“It must be emphasized, however, 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 specific format so long as it informs the co-owner of the terms and conditions of the sale, as well as its validity and efficacy…

“By parity of reasoning, the Court finds that it, too, must yield to equity in the instant case. There are peculiar circumstances in the case at bar that show that petitioners had sufficient knowledge of the sale and its particulars and that there was laches on their part.

“As correctly pointed out by the CA, Lot 236 was duly surveyed for the segregation of the subject property from it. Since petitioners were in actual possession of Lot 236 at the time, they would have known about the survey. As a result of said survey, Lot 236-A was segregated and TCT No. T-175069 was issued in the respondent’s name on 27 January 2010.

“While the date of the survey was not provided in the pleadings before the Court, it would have occurred prior to 27 January 2010. Thus, petitioners would have had actual notice by such date. Furthermore, petitioners had actual notice of the sale when respondent filed an action for recovery of possession with damages against them.

“The basis for the action filed by respondent was precisely his purchase of Adelaida’s share. Thus, it cannot be denied that when said action was filed, petitioners acquired actual knowledge of the sale between Adelaida and respondent, as well as the sale’s particulars…

“At the very least, petitioners could have exercised their right to redeem within a reasonable period from their receipt of the complaint. They failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court finds that petitioners had actual knowledge of the sale, at the latest, on 27 January 2010. They filed the complaint for legal redemption with damages only on 28 March 2016. It took them six years and two months to file their complaint. Laches had set in against them.

“Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is not concerned only with the mere lapse of time, but with the inequity caused by the relief seeker’s inaction.

“Thus, the written notice requirement may be dispensed with in the instant case due to the peculiar circumstances involved and the laches that had set in against petitioners.”

The facts and quoted redacted portion of the decision are from Antonio Jr. and Rafael Azurin v. Carlito Chua (G.R. 259662, 23 April 2025).