HEIRS OF CECILIO (also known as BASILIO) CLAUDEL, namely, 1.

1. The failure to bring and prosecute the action in the name of the real
MODESTA CLAUDEL, LORETA HERRERA, JOSE CLAUDEL, party in interest was not a fatal omission since the court a quo could
BENJAMIN CLAUDEL, PACITA CLAUDEL, CARMELITA CLAUDEL, have adjudicated the lots to the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO, the parents of
MARIO CLAUDEL, ROBERTO CLAUDEL, LEONARDO CLAUDEL, the herein respondents, leaving it to them to adjudicate the property
ARSENIA VILLALON, PERPETUA CLAUDEL and FELISA CLAUDEL among themselves.
vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF MACARIO, 2. The fact of residence in the disputed properties by the herein
ESPERIDIONA, RAYMUNDA and CELESTINA, all surnamed respondents had been made possible by the toleration of the deceased
CLAUDEL Cecilio.
G.R. No. 85240             July 12, 1991 3. The Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts and not to
Facts: Basilio also known as "Cecilio" Claudel, acquired from the Bureau consummated sales as in the case at bar where oral evidence may be
of Lands, Lot No. 1230 of the Muntinlupa Estate Subdivision, located in admitted as cited in Iñigo v. Estate of Magtoto 7 and Diana, et al. v.
the poblacion of Muntinlupa, Rizal. He secured Transfer Certificate of Macalibo.8
Title. He also declared the lot in his name. He dutifully paid the real Also that given the nature of their relationship with one another it is not
estate taxes thereon until his death in 1937. Thereafter, his widow unusual that no document to evidence the sale was executed, in their
"Basilia" and later, her son Jose, one of the herein petitioners, paid the blind faith in friends and relatives, in their lack of experience and
taxes. foresight, and in their ignorance, men, in spite of laws, will make and
Two branches of Cecilio's family contested the ownership over the land- continue to make verbal contracts.
on one hand the children of Cecilio, the herein petitioners (hereinafter 4. The defense of prescription cannot be set up against the herein
referred to as HEIRS OF CECILIO), and on the other, the brother and petitioners despite the lapse of over forty years from the time of the
sisters of Cecilio, and their children and descendants, now the herein alleged sale in 1930 up to the filing of the "Complaint for Cancellation of
private respondents (hereinafter referred to as SIBLINGS OF CECILIO). Titles and Reconveyance . . ." in 1976.
In 1972, the HEIRS OF CECILIO partitioned this lot among themselves. According to the Court of Appeals, the action was not for the recovery of
Four years later, private respondents SIBLINGS OF CECILIO, filed Civil possession of real property but for the cancellation of titles issued to the
Case No. a "Complaint for Cancellation of Titles and Reconveyance with HEIRS OF CECILIO in 1973. Since the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO commenced
Damages," in the CFI of Rizal, alleging that 46 years earlier, or sometime their complaint for cancellation of titles and reconveyance with damages
in 1930, their parents had purchased from the late Cecilio Claudel several on December 7, 1976, only four years after the HEIRS OF CECILIO
portions of Lot No. 1230 for the sum of P30.00. They admitted that the partitioned this lot among themselves and obtained the corresponding
transaction was verbal. However, as proof of the sale, the SIBLINGS OF Transfer Certificates of Titles, then there is no prescription of action yet.
CECILIO presented a subdivision plan of the said land, dated March 25, Issue 1: Whether or not a contract of sale of land may be proven orally:
1930, indicating the portions allegedly sold to the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO. Issue 2: Whether or not the prescriptive period for filing an action for
Court of First Instance: Dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the cancellation of titles and reconveyance with damages (the action filed by
plaintiffs failed to present any document evidencing the alleged sale of the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO) should be counted from the alleged sale
the property to their predecessors in interest by the father of the upon which they claim their ownership (1930) or from the date of the
defendants. Considering that the subject matter of the supposed sale is a issuance of the titles sought to be cancelled in favor of the HEIRS OF
real property the absence of any document evidencing the sale would CECILIO (1976).
preclude the admission of oral testimony (Statute of Frauds). Moreover, Ruling 1: No, it may not.
considering also that the alleged sale took place in 1930, the action filed The rule of thumb is that a sale of land, once consummated, is valid
by the plaintiffs herein for the recovery of the same more than thirty regardless of the form it may have been entered into. For nowhere does
years after the cause of action has accrued has already prescribed. law or jurisprudence prescribe that the contract of sale be put in writing
The Court of Appeals:  Reversed the decision of the trial court on the before such contract can validly cede or transmit rights over a certain
following grounds. real property between the parties themselves.
However, in the event that a third party, as in this case, disputes the Above all, the torrens title in the possession of the HEIRS OF CECILIO
ownership of the property, the person against whom that claim is carries more weight as proof of ownership than the survey or subdivision
brought cannot present any proof of such sale and hence has no means plan of a parcel of land in the name of SIBLINGS OF CECILIO.
to enforce the contract. Thus the Statute of Frauds was precisely devised In the present case, however, the facts belie the claim of ownership.
to protect the parties in a contract of sale of real property so that no For several years, when the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO, namely, Macario,
such contract is enforceable unless certain requisites, for purposes of EsperidionaRaymunda, and Celestina were living on the contested
proof, are met. premises, they regularly paid a sum of money, designated as "taxes" at
Art. 1403 (Civil Code). The following contracts are unenforceable, unless first, to the widow of Cecilio, and later, to his heirs.  We are rather
they are ratified: inclined to consider this fact as an admission of non-ownership. And
2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in when we consider also that the petitioners HEIRS OF CECILIO had
this number. In the following cases, an agreement hereafter made shall individually paid to the municipal treasury the taxes corresponding to the
be unenforceable by action unless the same, or some note or particular portions they were occupying, we can readily see the
memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party superiority of the petitioners' position.
charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot Renato Solema and DeciminaCalvez, two of the respondents who derive
be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents: their right from the SIBLINGS OF CLAUDEL, bought a portion of the lot
e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for from Felisa Claudel, one of the HEIRS OF CLAUDEL. The Calvezes should
the sale of real property or of an interest therein; not be paying for a lot that they already owned and if they did not
The purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent fraud and perjury in acknowledge Felisa as its owner.
the enforcement of obligations depending for their evidence upon the In addition, before any of the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO could stay on any of
unassisted memory of witnesses by requiring certain enumerated the portions of the property, they had to ask first the permission of Jose
contracts and transactions to be evidenced in Writing. Claudel again, one of the HEIRS OF CECILIO. In fact the only reason
Therefore, except under the conditions provided by the Statute of why any of the heirs of SIBLINGS OF CECILIO could stay on the lot was
Frauds, the existence of the contract of sale made by Cecilio with his because they were allowed to do so by the HEIRS OF CECILIO.
siblings cannot be proved.
On the second issue, the belated claim of the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO who
filed a complaint in court only in 1976 to enforce a right acquired
allegedly as early as 1930, cannot stand.
The Civil Code states:
Art. 1145. The following actions must be commenced within six years:
(1) Upon an oral contract . . .
If the parties SIBLINGS OF CECILIO had allegedly derived their right of
action from the oral purchase made by their parents in 1930, then the
action filed in 1976 would have clearly prescribed. More than six years
had lapsed.
We do not agree with the parties SIBLINGS OF CECILIO when they
reason that an implied trust in favor of the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO was
established in 1972, when the HEIRS OF CECILIO executed a contract of
partition over the said properties.
But as we had pointed out, the law recognizes the superiority of the
torrens title.