This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-09-14 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Lately, in Gosiengfiao Guillen v. the Court of Appeals,[18] 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. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||