Supreme Court Affirms Rule on Written Notice in Co-Ownership and Legal Redemption

In the case of Azurin v. Chua (G.R. No. 259662, 23 April 2025), the Supreme Court resolves the issue of whether the written notice requirement under Article 1623 of the Civil Code is mandatory. The provision specifically provides that, “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 subject property involved in this case was originally owned by the parents of Antonio Azurin, Sr. (“Antonio Sr.”) until it was duly transferred in his name upon their death. Through the quitclaims executed by his siblings, he was able to have the lot transferred in the names of his sons: Antonio, Jr., Rafael, and Larry Azurin (collectively, “Antonio, Jr., et al.”). Upon discovery of the sole adjudication made by Antonio Sr, his siblings filed a complaint for recovery of property with nullity of documents against Antonio Jr. et al. The RTC, and as affirmed by the CA, ruled that one of Antonio Sr.’s siblings, Adelaida, as owner of ¼ of the lot, on the basis of a 1984 deed of sale executed by Antonio Sr. in her favor. 

With this, Adelaida sold the lot to respondent Carlito Chua in 2005. By 2010, the property was surveyed, subdivided, and a new title was issued in Carlito’s name. Carlito then filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Antonio Jr. et al. The RTC issued a writ of execution and writ of demolition against Antonio Jr. et al, however, in 2016, Antonio Jr. et al filed a complaint for legal redemption against Carlito. They argued that legal redemption may still be exercised as the 30-day period had not begun to run against them. They claimed that under Article 1623 of the Civil Code, a written notice is indispensable despite the actual knowledge of the sale. However, they were not given written notice of the sale between Adelaida and Carlito.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Carlito Chua yielding to equity as it did in Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. L-72873, 28 May 1987). The instant case falls under the exception to the strict requirement of written notice due to the presence of the following: (1) peculiar circumstances that gave the co-owners sufficient knowledge of the sale and its particulars; and (2) laches on the part of the redemptioners. These peculiar circumstances included the fact that the lot was duly surveyed for segregation; since petitioners were in actual possession of Lot 236 at the time, they would have known about the survey. Furthermore, they had actual notice of the sale when Carlito filed an action for recovery of possession with damages against them. The Court also found that petitioners had actual knowledge of the sale in January 2010 but only filed for legal redemption in March 2016, a delay of six years, indicating that laches had set in against them. Thus, due to Antonio, Jr. and Rafael’s failure to redeem the property within the statutory period, Carlito, the buyer, gained absolute right over the subject property.

In clarifying its stance on Article 1623, the Court categorically stated that it never relaxed nor abandoned its consistent ruling that the written notice requirement is mandatory and indispensable. The Court explained that if the law did not expressly intend for such a notice to be in written form, it would not have specified it as such. While written notice is indeed mandatory for the 30-day period of redemption to commence, the Court clarified that the form of such written notice need not conform to any specific kind of format. What is essential is that it effectively informs the co-owner of the terms and conditions of the sale, as well as its validity and efficacy.The full text is available in this link.