"x x x.
Anent the second issue asserted by the petitioners, we find no reversible error on the part of the CA in ruling that 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. Verily, despite the respondents’ actual knowledge of the sale to the respondents, 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 Civil Code succinctly provides that:
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. (emphasis supplied)
The indispensability of the “written notice requirement” for purposes of the exercise of the right of redemption was explained by this Court inBarcellano v. Bañas,[16] thus:
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 indispensability of a written notice had long been discussed in the early case of Conejero v. Court of Appeals, penned by Justice J.B.L. Reyes:
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.
This is the same ruling in Verdad v. Court of Appeals:
The written notice of sale is mandatory. This Court has long established the rule that notwithstanding actual knowledge of a co-owner, the latter is still entitled to a written notice from the selling co-owner in order to remove all uncertainties about the sale, its terms and conditions, as well as its efficacy and status.
Lately, in Gosiengfiao Guillen v. The Court of Appeals, this Court again emphasized the mandatory character of a written notice in legal redemption:
From these premises, we ruled that “[P]etitioner-heirs have not lost their right to redeem, for in the absence of a written notification of the sale by the vendors, the 30-day period has not even begun to run.”These premises and conclusion leave no doubt about the thrust of Mariano: The right of the petitioner-heirs to exercise their right of legal redemption exists, and the running of the period for its exercise has not even been triggered because they have not been notified in writing of the fact of sale.
x x x x
Justice Edgardo Paras, referring to the origins of the requirement, would explain in his commentaries on the New Civil Code that despite actual knowledge, the person having the right to redeem is STILLentitled to the written notice. Both the letter and the spirit of the New Civil Code argue against any attempt to widen the scope of the “written notice” by including therein any other kind of notice such as an oral one, or by registration. If the intent of the law has been to include verbal notice or any other means of information as sufficient to give the effect of this notice, there would have been no necessity or reason to specify in the article that said notice be in writing, for under the old law, a verbal notice or mere information was already deemed sufficient.
Time and time again, it has been repeatedly declared by this Court that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation. There is only room for application. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms, and interpretation should be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice. x x x (citations omitted)
Here, it is undisputed that the respondents did not receive a written notice of the sale in favor of the petitioners. Accordingly, the 30-day period stated under Article 1623 of the Civil Code within which to exercise their right of redemption has not begun to run. Consequently, the respondents may still redeem from the petitioners the portion of the subject property that was sold to the latter.
