• This case resolves a dispute over the right of legal redemption between co-owners. The petitioners, co-owners of a property, sought to redeem a share sold by another co-owner to a third person. They argued their 30-day redemption period never started because they did not receive a written notice of the sale as required by law. The Supreme Court denied their petition, ruling that despite the lack of written notice, their actual knowledge of the sale and their long delay (laches) in acting on it barred their right to redeem.

• The Co-ownership: Petitioners Antonio, Jr. and Rafael Azurin were co-owners of Lot 236 along with their aunt, Adelaida Azurin-Villanueva.
• The Sale: On November 25, 2005, Adelaida sold her one-fourth share of the property to respondent Carlito Chua.
• Knowledge of the Sale: The property was surveyed, subdivided, and a new title (TCT No. T-175069) was issued in Carlito's name on January 27, 2010. Carlito then filed a complaint to recover possession from the petitioners.
• The Lawsuit for Redemption: On March 28, 2016, more than six years after the new title was issued, the Azurin brothers filed a complaint to legally redeem the property, claiming they were never given written notice of the 2005 sale.

• Trial Court (RTC) Ruling: The RTC dismissed the complaint for legal redemption, finding it was filed long after the 30-day statutory period.
• Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling: The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, emphasizing that the petitioners had actual knowledge of the sale through various means (the property survey, the issuance of a new title, and the possession lawsuit filed against them) and failed to act in time.
• Appeal to the Supreme Court: The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, insisting that the lack of written notice meant their right to redeem had not expired.

• Is the written notice requirement under Article 1623 of the Civil Code absolutely indispensable, or can it be dispensed with if the co-owner has actual knowledge of the sale?
• Did the petitioners' delay of over six years in filing their complaint constitute laches, thereby barring their right of redemption?

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts' decisions.

• Written Notice Rule is Not Absolute: While reaffirming that the written notice requirement is mandatory, the Court applied a long-standing exception from the case of *Alonzo v. IAC*. This exception allows the written notice to be dispensed with when there are peculiar circumstances showing the co-owner had sufficient actual knowledge of the sale and is guilty of laches.
• Laches Had Set In: The Court found that the petitioners had actual knowledge of the sale, at the latest, on January 27, 2010 (when the new title was issued). By waiting over six years to file their redemption case, they were guilty of laches (unreasonable delay), and it would be inequitable to allow them to redeem the property after such a long period of inaction.

• Legal Redemption (Art. 1623, Civil Code): A co-owner has the right to redeem a share sold to a third person within 30 days from the notice in writing by the vendor.
• Mandatory Written Notice: The written notice is mandatory and indispensable to start the 30-day redemption period. The law requires it to remove uncertainty about the sale.
• Exception due to Equity and Laches: The strict written notice rule can be relaxed when a co-owner has undeniable actual knowledge of the sale's details and is guilty of laches (unreasonable and unexplained delay in asserting their right), making it inequitable to grant the redemption.