Civil Code: Persons, Family, and Relations vendor, or by the vendor, as the case

Topic: Duty to render judgment maybe.

Relevant Article/s: Art 9 of the Civil Code
No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by
reason of the silence, obscurity, or insufficiency of the
laws.
Art 10 of the Civil Code
In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of
laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body
intended right and justice to prevail.
Armando Barcellano v Dolores Banas
G.R. No. 165287, September 14, 2011
Ponente: Justice Perez
Facts:
 Nothing in the records and pleadings
submitted by the parties shows that there
was a written notice sent to the
respondents. Without a written notice, the
period of thirty days within which the right of
legal pre-emption may be exercised, does
not start.
 The law is clear. Written notice is mandatory
and indispensable.
 The statute not having provided for any
alternative, the method of notification
prescribed remains exclusive.
Therefore, the Court, speaking thru Justice Perez,
denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the
appellate court granting Banas’ heirs their right of to
redeem the subject property.

 Respondent Dolores Banas is an heir of

Bartolome Banas who owns simple lot in DOCTRINE:
Albay. Time and time again, it has been repeatedly declared
 Adjoining the said lot is owned by Vicente by this Court that where the law speaks in clear and
Medina. categorical language, there is no room for
 In 1997, Medina offered his lot for sale to the interpretation (Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non
heirs of Bartolome Banas, the respondents, Indiget).
and agreed to the offer of Medina, the sale to
take place after harvest season.
 The property was ACTUALLY sold to
Armando Barcellano.
 Upon learning of the sale, the heirs of Banas
conveyed their intention to redeem the
property, but Medina replied that there was
already a deed of sale executed between
parties.
 The Banas’ heirs failed to tender the
redemption amount of P60,000.00 to Medina
 Action to redeem the lot was filed before the
RTC.
 The RTC denied the petition on the ground
that the Banas failed to exercise their right of
redemption within the period provided by
Article 1623 of the NCC.
 On appeal, such decision was reversed.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC decision to deny the
Banas’ heirs of their right of legal redemption is valid
Ruling/s:

 NO.
 Based on Article 1623 of the NCC, the right
of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not
be exercised except within thirty days from
the notice in writing by the prospective