Tan v.
Lim (1998)
Topic: No Form
PARTIES:
Petitioners: Marcelino Tan, et. al.
Respondents: Jose Renato Lim, et. al.
FACTS:
Civil Case 6518 is a case for injunction. Marcelino Tan (petitioner) alleged that he is the
lessee of the western portion of a land in Tarlac, under a Contract of Lease executed
between him and Luz, Carlos, and Flora (Briones).
The co-owners of the lessors of Tan sold the northeast portion of the land adjoining
Ancheta Street to Lim. Tan alleged that his only means of egress to the leased portion of
the land from Ancheta Street and vice-versa, is through the northeast portion of the
land (a fact known to Lim).
Sometime in August 1983, Lim padlocked the gate of the portion he purchased from the
other co-owner of the land which is fronting Ancheta Street, thereby preventing and
depriving Tan his only means of ingress and egress from the property leased to him.
Lim also demolished all the existing walls enclosing the leased property and began
constructing a building on the leased premises to the damage and prejudice of Tan.
Tan prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary and/or mandatory injunction to
prevent Renato Lim from committing further acts of dispossession and to allow him to
give means of ingress and egress to the property leased to him.
Civil Case 6521 is a case for Legal Redemption. The plaintiffs (all surnamed Briones and
Jovellanos), together with the private respondents (Reyes) are co-owners in pro-diviso
shares of that parcel of land in Tarlac. They alleged that the private respondents sold
and conveyed their shares in that parcel of land to their co-respondents spouses Renato
Lim and Cynthia Go, as evidenced by Deeds of Absolute Sale on July 15 and August 25,
1983.
Petitioners, as co-owners, desire to exercise their right of legal redemption and are
willing to deliver to Lim the amount representing the aggregate sum that they paid to
co-respondents upon the execution by the spouses of the corresponding Deeds of Sale
in petitioner’s favor.
The two cases were jointly heard because the issues were interrelated. In the injunction
case, the trial court ruled that Lim open the gate of the property leased by Tan which
serves as means of egress and ingress of Tan, and to remove whatever they have already
constructed thereon. In the legal redemption case, the court ordered Sps. Lim and Go to
resell to the plaintiffs all the undivided shares in the parcel of land that were sold to
them by their co-defendants, upon payment to them by plaintiffs the amount of P144K.
The CA reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the complaint.
In several Deeds of Sale, the respondents Ambrocio sold their interest in the property,
consisting of 244sqm to Lim. On the other hand, petitioners Flora leased to Tan the
remaining 1/2 portion of the property of 3 years beginning Jan. 1, 1983 to Dec. 31, 1985.
According to the trial court, Ambrocio failed to comply with Art. 1620 when they did not
give a written notice to petitioners Flora of the sale of their respective undivided interest
on the property before and at the time the Deeds of Sale were executed in favor of Lim
and Go.
On the other hand, the CA found that Ambrosio and Flora were able to secure the
issuance of TCT in their names, they agreed to partition the property with Ambrocio
getting the interior half and Flora getting the anterior portion. No document was drawn
up to embody and evidence the oral partition by petitioners Flora who later leased
exactly 1/2 of the property to Tan while Ambrocio thereafter sold the other hald to Lim
and Go. Thus, the CA concluded that the oral agreement of partition, coupled with its
actual implementation, effectively ended the co-ownership between the two sets of
Briones heirs at the time of the sale of the interior portion to Lim and Go. There was, no
necessity to notify Flora of the sale.
The CA denied the motion for reconsideration.
ISSUES/HELD: W/N a note or memorandum is necessary for enforceability of a contract of
partition. (NO)
Petitioners, however, argue that there is no note or memorandum or any deed of
partition offered in evidence by respondents Ambrocio, et al. to substantiate the claim
of partition. This argument is flawed. Petitioners failed to cite any provision of law
requiring a note or memorandum for a contract of partition to be valid. Contracts are
obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into provided all the essential
requirements are present.
Limketkai ons Milling, Inc. v. CA – “A sale of land is valid regardless of the form it may
have been entered into (Claudel v. CS [1991]). The requisite form under Article 1458 of
the Civil Code is merely for greater efficacy or convenience and the failure to comply
therewith does not affect the validity and binding effect of the act between the parties
(Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 Revised Edition, p. 552). If the
law requires a document or other special form, as in the sale of real property, the
contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has
been perfected. Their right may be exercised simultaneously with action upon the
contract (Article 1359, Civil Code).”
Art. 1403 enumerates the limited instances when written proof of a contract is essential
for enforceability. A contract of partition is not one of the contracts mentioned.
Given that the oral partition in question had already been fully consummated except for
the issuance of separate titles to each respective side of the Briones family, the Court’s
ruling in Hernandez v. Andal correctly applies: “On general principle, independent and
in spite of the statute of frauds, courts of equity have enforced oral partition when it has
been completely or partly performed. ‘Regardless of whether a parol partition or
agreement to partition is valid and enforceable at law, equity will in proper cases, where
the parol partition has actually been consummated by the taking of possession in
severalty and the exercise of ownership by the parties of the respective portions set off
to each, recognize and enforce such parol partition and the rights of the parties
thereunder.
Thus, it has been held or stated in a number of cases involving an oral partition under
which the parties went into possession, exercised acts of ownership or otherwise partly
performed in the partition agreement, that equity will confirm such partition
JUDGMENT: Judgment is AFFIRMED.
