Et Al. v. Macalibo " Given The Nature of Their Relationship With

Claudel v.
CA o Plaintiffs failed to present any document evidencing the alleged

G.R. No. 85240 | July 12, 1991 sale of the property to their predecessors in interest by the father of
Sarmiento, J. the defendants
 Considering that the subject matter of the supposed
Topic: Statute of Frauds sale is a real property, the absence of any document
evidencing the sale would preclude the admission of
Petitioners: HEIRS OF CECILIO (also known as BASILIO) CLAUDEL, namely, oral testimony (Statute of Frauds)
MODESTA CLAUDEL, LORETA HERRERA, JOSE CLAUDEL, BENJAMIN o Also, considering that the alleged sale took place in 1930, the
CLAUDEL, PACITA CLAUDEL, CARMELITA CLAUDEL, MARIO CLAUDEL, action filed by plaintiffs for its recovery more than thirty years
ROBERTO CLAUDEL, LEONARDO CLAUDEL, ARSENIA VILLALON, after the cause of action has accrued has already prescribed
PERPETUA CLAUDEL and FELISA CLAUDEL  SIBLINGS OF CECILIO appealed; CA reversed CFI’s decision
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF MACARIO, ESPERIDIONA, o Failure to bring and prosecute the action in the name of the parties
RAYMUNDA and CELESTINA, all surnamed CLAUDEL themselves not a fatal omission; could have adjudicated the lots to
the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO (parents of the respondents) to
Facts: adjudicate the property among themselves
 December 28, 1922: Basilio a.k.a. "Cecilio" Claudel acquired from the o The fact of residence in the disputed properties by respondents was
Bureau of Lands Lot No. 1230 (area of 10,107sqm) of the Muntinlupa possible bc of tolerance of Cecilio
Estate Subdivision, located in the poblacion of Muntinlupa, Rizal o Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts and not
o 1923: secured TCT No. 7471 issued by the Registry of Deeds for to consummated sales as in the case at bar where oral evidence
the Province of Rizal; also declared the lot in his name; paid real may be admitted as cited in Iñigo v. Estate of Magtoto and Diana,
estate taxes until his death in 1937; his widow Basilia and later, her et al. v. Macalibo; “…Given the nature of their relationship with
son Jose paid the taxes after his death one another it is not unusual that no document to evidence the
 2 branches of his family contested the ownership over the land: sale was executed,…, in their blind faith in friends and relatives,
a) His children –Modesto, Loreta, Jose, Benjamin, Pacita, Carmelita, in their lack of experience and foresight, and in their ignorance,
Roberto, Mario, Leonardo, Nenita, Arsenia Villalon, and Felisa men, in spite of laws, will make and continue to make verbal
Claudel, and their children and descendants [Heirs of Cecilio] contracts…”
b) His brother and sisters – Macario, Esperidiona, Raymunda, and o Defense of prescription cannot be set up against petitioners despite
Celestina and their children and descendants [Siblings of Cecilio] the lapse of over forty years from the time of the alleged sale to the
 1972: HEIRS OF CECILIO partitioned the lot among themselves and filing of the complaint
obtained TCTs on their shares (1,997sqm each for Jose, Modesta and her  action was not for the recovery of possession of real
children, Arsenia, Felisa) property but for the cancellation of titles issued to the
 December 7, 1976: SIBLINGS OF CECILIO filed civil case with CFI Rizal HEIRS OF CECILIO in 1973
– Complaint for Cancellation of Titles and Reconveyance with Damages  Complaint for cancellation of titles and reconveyance
o Alleged that 46 years earlier (1930), their parents purchased with damages was commenced on December 7, 1976,
from Cecilio several portions of Lot No. 1230 for P30 only 4 years after the HEIRS OF CECILIO partitioned the
o The transaction was verbal but as proof of the sale, they lot among themselves and obtained the corresponding
presented a subdivision plan of the land (dated March 25, 1930) TCTs, thus no prescription of action yet
indicating the portions allegedly sold  CA: ordered the cancellation of TCTs issued in the names of the HEIRS OF
 CFI Rizal: dismissed the complaint; disregarded the abovementioned sole CECILIO and ordered the execution deeds of reconveyance in favor of the
evidence of the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO SIBLINGS OF CECILIO while lots 1230-E (598sqm) and 1230-F
o Heirs particularly involved not named – Court would not be able to (6,927sqm) would go to petitioners (beyond these, the HEIRS OF CECILIO
apportion the property to the real party in interest if ever they are would not receive anything else)
entitled to it
o Heirs of Raymunda Claudel (except Lampitoc) are no longer Issue/s:
residing in the property; left in 1967 1. W/N a contract of sale of land may be proven orally – NO
2. W/N the prescriptive period for filing an action for cancellation of titles and Contracts in the Civil Code to show that it is also a substantive
reconveyance with damages (the action filed by the SIBLINGS OF law
CECILIO) should be counted from the alleged sale upon which they claim  Therefore, except under the conditions provided by the Statute of
their ownership (1930) or from the date of the issuance of the titles sought Frauds, the existence of the contract of sale made by Cecilio with his
to be cancelled in favor of the HEIRS OF CECILIO (1976) – 1930 siblings cannot be proved
Judgment: 2. SC: The belated claim of the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO to enforce a right
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the acquired allegedly as early as 1930 is difficult to comprehend.
decision rendered in CA-G.R. CV No. 04429, and we hereby REINSTATE the  Art. 1145, CC: “The following actions must be commenced within six
decision of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch 28, Pasay City) in Civil years:
Case No. M-5276-P which ruled for the dismissal of the Complaint for Cancellation (1) Upon an oral contract . . .”
of Titles and Reconveyance with Damages filed by the Heirs of Macario,  If the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO allegedly derived their right of action from
Esperidiona Raymunda, and Celestina, all surnamed CLAUDEL. Costs against the the oral purchase made by their parents in 1930, then the action filed in
private respondents. 1976 would have clearly prescribed bc more than six years had lapsed
 SC: We do not agree that an implied trust in favor of the SIBLINGS OF
Ratio: CECILIO was established in 1972, when the HEIRS OF CECILIO executed
1. Rule of thumb: sale of land, once consummated, is valid regardless of a contract of partition over the said properties
the form it may have been entered into for neither law nor jurisprudence  Law recognizes the superiority of the torrens title
prescribe that the contract of sale be put in writing before such contract can o Torrens title in the possession of the HEIRS OF CECILIO carries
validly cede or transmit rights over a certain real property between the more weight as proof of ownership than the survey or subdivision
parties themselves plan of a parcel of land in the name of SIBLINGS OF CECILIO
o HOWEVER, in the event that a third party disputes the o The Court upheld the indefeasibility of the torrens title – no
ownership of the property, the person against whom that claim possession by any person of any portion of the land could defeat
is brought cannot present any proof of such sale and hence has the title of the registered owners thereof
no means to enforce the contract; thus, the Statute of Frauds  “A torrens title, once registered, cannot be defeated, even
was devised to protect the parties in a contract of sale of real by adverse, open and notorious possession. A registered
property so that no such contract is enforceable unless certain title under the torrens system cannot be defeated by
requisites, for purposes of proof, are met prescription. The title, once registered, is notice to the
 Provisions of the Statute of Frauds pertinent to the case: world. All persons must take notice. No one can plead
Art. 1403, CC: The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they ignorance of the registration.”
are ratified: x x x x x x x x x
2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in o True that in some instances, the Court did away with the
this number. In the following cases, an agreement hereafter made irrevocability of the torrens title, but the circumstances in the case
shall be unenforceable by action unless the same, or some note or at bar varied significantly from these cases
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;
 Purpose of the Statute of Frauds: prevent fraud and perjury in the
enforcement of obligations depending for their evidence upon the unassisted
memory of witnesses by requiring certain enumerated contracts and
transactions to be evidenced in Writing
o Statute of Frauds provisions originally appeared under the old
Rules of Evidence but when the Civil Code was re-written in 1949,
the provisions were included under the title on Unenforceable

Et Al. v. Macalibo " Given The Nature of Their Relationship With

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Et Al. v. Macalibo " Given The Nature of Their Relationship With

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Et Al. v. Macalibo " Given The Nature of Their Relationship With

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Claudel v.

CA o Plaintiffs failed to present any document evidencing the alleged

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.