Heirs of Cecilio Caludel, et. al vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 85240, July 12, 1991
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
As early as December 28, 1922,
Basilio also known as “Cecilio” Claudel, acquired from the Bureau of Lands some
parcel of lands of the Muntinlupa Estate Subdivision, located in the población
of Muntinlupa, Rizal, with an area of 10, 107 square meters; he secured TCT’s
in 1923; he also declared the lot in his name.
He dutifully paid the real estate
taxes thereon until his death in 1937. Thereafter, his widow “Basilia” and
later, her son Jose, one of the herein petitioners, paid the taxes. Thirty-nine
years after Cecilio’s death, two branches of Cecilio’s family consented the
ownership over the land-on hand the children of Cecilio herein petitioners
(hereinafter referred to as Heirs of Cecilio), and on the other, the brother
and sister of Cecilio herein private respondent’s (hereinafter referred to as
SIBLINGS OF CECILIO). In 1972, the HEIRS OF CECILIO partitioned this lot among
themselves and obtained the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title on
their shares.
Four years later, on December 7,
1976, private respondents SIBLINGS OF CECILI), filed a “Complaint for Cancellation
of Titles and Reconveyance with Damages,” alleging that 46 years earlier, or
somewhat in 1930, their parents had purchased from the late Cecilio Claudel
several portions of the subject lot. They admitted that the transaction was
verbal. However, as proof of the sale, the SIBLINGS CECILIO presented a
subdivision plan of the said land, dated March 25, 1930, indicating the
portions allegedly sold to the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO.
ISSUE
Whether or not a
contract of sale of land may be proven orally.
RULING
Yes.
Under the law (Art. 1403, NCC), the
following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified: (2) Those that
do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the
following cases, an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action
unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and
subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the
agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its
contents: (e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year,
or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein.
In this case, the Supreme Court
reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated that of the trial
court, which ruled for the dismissal of the suit for cancellation of titles and
reconveyance. It held that a sale of land, once consummated, is valid
regardless of the form it may have been entered. Nowhere does law and jurisprudence
prescribe that the contract of sale be put in writing before such contract can
validly cede or transmit rights over a certain real property between the
parties themselves. But if a third party, as in this case, disputes the
ownership of the property, the person against whom the claim is brought cannot
present any proof of such sale and, hence, has no means to enforce the
contract. Thus, the statute of frauds was precisely devised to protect the
parties in a contract of sale of real property so that no such contract is
enforceable unless certain requisites, for purpose of proof, are met.
Therefore, except under the conditions provided by the Statute of Frauds, the
existence of the contract of sale made by Cecilio with his siblings cannot be
proved. The belated claim of the siblings who filed a complaint only in 1976 to
enforce a right acquired allegedly as early as 1930, is difficult to
comprehend. The Civil Code states: the following must be commenced within six
years: (1) upon an oral contract. If the siblings had allegedly derived their
rights of action from the oral purchase made by their parents in 1930, then the
action filed in 1976 would have prescribed. More than six years had elapsed.
No comments:
Post a Comment