When spoken words bind
Marco is the registered owner of a parcel of land. Death snatched him on Valentine’s Day. He was survived by his two children, Noble and Nes. His children were minors at the time of his death. Neither Noble nor Nes knew then about their father’s ownership of the lot.
Many summers after, Noble received a written order from the Office of the City Treasurer directing her to settle the real property arrearages on the said lot. Noble found out about the land and learned that the lot is being occupied by her cousin, Ben.
Ben claimed that he bought the lot from his uncle Marco through the intercession of Marce, the de facto guardian of Nes. But Ben failed to show any written proof of the sale. Noble asked Ben to either pay the purchase price himself or sell it to third parties so they can divide the proceeds.
Noble issued a written demand to vacate against Ben, which went unheeded. Noble then filed an action for recovery of possession against Ben and his wife, Daisy.
In court, Ben admitted that the sale to him was completely unwritten, as Marco and Marce died before they could execute a deed of sale. He further admitted that Noble and Nes could not have executed the deed themselves in 1972 because they were still minors.
Ben presented purely testimonial evidence to prove the sale, offering the testimonies of his wife and relatives who were allegedly present during the payment of the installments and who were personally aware of Ben’s acquisition of possession over the disputed parcel, and that the payments he made given to the then legal guardian of Noble.
In response, Noble and Nes assert that the unwritten sale is unenforceable following Article 1403(2) of the Civil Code, which also renders inadmissible the parol evidence adduced by Ben and Daisy to prove the same.
Q: Does the failure to reduce the parties’ contract for the sale of real property to writing affect the validity of the said agreement?
A: No. Articles 1358 and 1403(2)(e) of the Civil Code ordain inter alia that contracts for the sale of real property must be made in a public document and subscribed by the party charged or his agent. Otherwise, they cannot be enforced by action, and evidence thereof cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents.
This requirement, however, does not affect the validity of such contracts, because the
Civil Code does not require accomplishment of acts or contracts in a public instrument to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy so that after the existence of the act or contract has been admitted, the party bound may be compelled to execute the document.
The scope of Article 1403(2) is limited to the enforcement of an unwritten contract. It does not apply to contracts that have been partially or totally implemented; and “[t]aking possession of the property and making improvements thereon serve as indicators that an oral sale of a piece of land had already been executed.”
Thus, buyers in possession may invoke an unwritten contract of sale as the legal basis of their possession.
Q: What is the status and effect of the sale of the land?
A: Under Articles 1477 and 1496 of the Civil Code, ownership of the thing sold is vested in the buyer upon delivery. Article 1582 of the same Code obligates the buyer to accept delivery and pay the price of the thing sold.
Ben and Daisy’s testimonies, coupled with the undisputed fact of their possession, clearly show that the disputed lot had been delivered to them.
Note, however, that when Marcos passed away, Ben paid the balance of the purchase price to Marce because the latter was Noble’s de facto guardian. However, there is no other evidence or circumstance on record, written or otherwise, to show Marce’s express or implied authority to receive the installment payments on behalf of Marco or his heirs.
Ben and Daisy admitted as much when they testified that Noble and Nes were the only persons capacitated to execute a written deed of sale over the lot, and concomitantly, to receive any payments for such sale.
Q: Were the payments made by Ben payments to Marce, the de facto guardian of Noble, valid? If not, must Ben be ordered to pay the siblings?
A: Marce’s de facto guardianship over Noble did not give him the power or authority to sell the latter’s property because guardians have no power to dispose of or encumber their wards’ properties without a court order.
Nobles and Nes thus correctly pointed out that the payments to Marce are ineffective, for Ben should have remitted the payments to them when they attained majority.
Instead, Ben remitted the rest of the payments to Marce and kept Marco’s heirs in the dark about the lot and the sale thereof.
Worse, Ben never heeded the lawyer’s advice even after Noble asked him to repurchase the lot in 2007. As the ineffective payments made to Marce did not extinguish their obligation to pay the purchase price to Marco and his heirs, Ben and Daisy must pay the balance to Noble and Nes.
Under Article 1497 of the Civil Code, the object of a sale contract is deemed delivered when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee, in this case, the year 1982.
Article 1589 of the same Code further provides that the buyer shall owe interest for the period between delivery of the thing and payment of the purchase price if the thing sold and delivered produced fruits or income.
The law imposes interest on the unpaid purchase price to prevent unjust enrichment of buyers who enjoy the fruits of the thing sold without fully complying with their obligation to pay the purchase price. Here, Ben and
Daisy testified that upon taking possession, they cleared the lot and planted crops thereon. They further claim having “receiv[ed] the agricultural fruits thereof for forty (40) years or more uninterrupt[ed]ly.”
Thus, Ben and Daisy must pay the balance of the purchase price, with interest at the legal rate, reckoned from the end of the year when they took possession of the lot, in accordance with Article 1589(2) of the Civil Code, until full payment of the purchase price. Upon full payment of the purchase price, Noble and Nes must fully implement the contract entered into by their father by executing a deed of sale in favor of Ben. (Source: Ocampo vs Sapad, G.R. No. 256343, Apr 2, 2025,[J. Gaerlan, Third Division])
The author is the Dean, College of Law, at Lyceum of the Philippines University, and founder of Mawis Law Office
