SPOUSES ROMAN A. PASCUAL and MERCEDITA R. PASCUAL, FRANCISCO A.

PASCUAL,
MARGARITA CORAZON D. MARIANO, EDWIN D. MARIANO and DANNY R. MARIANO Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES ANTONIO BALLESTEROS and LORENZA MELCHOR-BALLESTEROS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 186269, February 15, 2012

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the spouses Roman A. Pascual and Mercedita R. Pascual (Spouses
Pascual), Francisco A. Pascual (Francisco), Margarita Corazon D. Mariano (Margarita), Edwin D. Mariano and
Danny R. Mariano (petitioners) assailing the Decision and Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals.

Facts:
This case involves a parcel of land (subject land), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-30375,
owned by the spouses Albino and Margarita Corazon Mariano, Angela Melchor (Angela), and the spouses Melecio
and Victoria Melchor (Spouses Melchor). Upon the death of Spouses Melchor, their share in the subject property
was inherited by their daughter Lorenza Melchor Ballesteros (Lorenza). Subsequently, Lorenza and her husband
Antonio Ballesteros (respondents) acquired the share of Angela in the subject property. Years after, Margarita, one
of the co-owners of the subject land, sold their share in the subject property to Spouses Pascual and Francisco.
Subsequently, Spouses Pascual and Francisco caused the cancellation of TCT No. 30375 and a new TCT was issued
in their names together with Angela and Spouses Melchor.
Claiming that they did not receive any written notice of the said sale in favor of Spouses Pascual and Francisco,
Respondents filed for legal redemption against the petitioners. The respondents claimed that they are entitled to
redeem the portion of the subject property sold to Spouses Pascual and Francisco being co-owners of the same.
The petitioners averred that there was no co-ownership over the subject property considering that the shares of the
registered owners thereof had been particularized, specified and subdivided. Hence, the respondents have no right to
redeem the portion of the subject property that was sold to them.

Issue:
1. Whether the subject property was indeed co-owned by the respondents and their predecessors-in-
interest; and
2. Whether the respondents could no longer exercise their right of redemption having failed to exercise
the same within 30 days from actual knowledge of the said sale.

Held:
The petition is denied.

1. Yes, both RTC and CA found that the respondents, as well as their predecessors-in-interest, are indeed co-
owners of the subject land. Herein petitioners did not prove nor presented evidence that respondents and
their predecessors-in-interest are not co-owners of the subject land.

2. No, respondents can exercise their right of redemption.

The 30-day period given to the respondents within which to exercise their right of redemption has not
commenced in view of the absence of a written notice. Although the respondents had actual knowledge of
the sale between Margarita and Spouses Pascual and Francisco involving the shares of the former to the
 subject land, a written notice is still mandatory and indispensable for purposes of the commencement of the
30-day period within which to exercise the right of redemption.

Article 1623 of the New Civil Code provides:

ARTICLE 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty
days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be . The deed
of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor
that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.

The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners.

The indispensability of a written notice was discussed thoroughly in the case of Conejero v CA, thus:

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 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.

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision
dated July 29, 2008 and Resolution dated January 30, 2009 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
89111 are AFFIRMED.

Doctrine of the case:

The written notice is mandatory and indispensable for purposes of the commencement of the 30-day period
within which to exercise the right of redemption to remove all uncertainty as to the sale, its terms and its validity,
and to quiet any doubts that the alienation is not definitive.