1) The heirs of Cecilio Claudel and the siblings of Cecilio contested ownership over a parcel of land that Cecilio had acquired during his lifetime.
2) The siblings claimed that Cecilio had verbally sold portions of the land to their parents in 1930 for P30, but they had no documents evidencing the sale.
3) The Court of Appeals ruled that the Statute of Frauds did not apply since this was an alleged consummated sale rather than an executory contract.
4) The Supreme Court reversed, stating that the Statute of Frauds applies to contracts for the sale of real property to prevent fraud and perjury in the absence of written evidence of the sale.
1) The heirs of Cecilio Claudel and the siblings of Cecilio contested ownership over a parcel of land that Cecilio had acquired during his lifetime.
2) The siblings claimed that Cecilio had verbally sold portions of the land to their parents in 1930 for P30, but they had no documents evidencing the sale.
3) The Court of Appeals ruled that the Statute of Frauds did not apply since this was an alleged consummated sale rather than an executory contract.
4) The Supreme Court reversed, stating that the Statute of Frauds applies to contracts for the sale of real property to prevent fraud and perjury in the absence of written evidence of the sale.
1) The heirs of Cecilio Claudel and the siblings of Cecilio contested ownership over a parcel of land that Cecilio had acquired during his lifetime.
2) The siblings claimed that Cecilio had verbally sold portions of the land to their parents in 1930 for P30, but they had no documents evidencing the sale.
3) The Court of Appeals ruled that the Statute of Frauds did not apply since this was an alleged consummated sale rather than an executory contract.
4) The Supreme Court reversed, stating that the Statute of Frauds applies to contracts for the sale of real property to prevent fraud and perjury in the absence of written evidence of the sale.
1) The heirs of Cecilio Claudel and the siblings of Cecilio contested ownership over a parcel of land that Cecilio had acquired during his lifetime.
2) The siblings claimed that Cecilio had verbally sold portions of the land to their parents in 1930 for P30, but they had no documents evidencing the sale.
3) The Court of Appeals ruled that the Statute of Frauds did not apply since this was an alleged consummated sale rather than an executory contract.
4) The Supreme Court reversed, stating that the Statute of Frauds applies to contracts for the sale of real property to prevent fraud and perjury in the absence of written evidence of the sale.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Heirs of Spouses Yanas vs.
Heirs of Spouses Acaylar
(G.R. No. 54538. April 25, 1985)
Facts: This case on the validity of the sale of land executed by Luis Yanas, an illiterate. Yanas had occupied, even before 1926, Lot No. 5408 with an area of 13 hectares located at Zamboanga del Norte. Through lawyer Leoncio S. Hamoy, Yanas claimed the lot in the cadastral proceeding. Judge Mañalac adjudicated the lot to Yanas. Yanas thumbmarked in Dapitan a deed of sale and conveyance wherein he purportedly sold to Antonio L. Acaylar of Dapitan for P200 his 13-hectare land. The sale was notarized on the following day. An instrumental witness was lawyer Hamoy. The sale was approved by Governor Felipe B. Azcuna 33 months after the sale. It was the theory of the heirs of Yanas that deed of sale is fictitious and fraudulent because what Yanas thumbmarked was supposed to be a receipt attesting that he owed Hamoy P200 for his legal services. Hamoy allegedly taking advantage of his illiteracy, made Yanas affix his thumbmark to a deed of sale in English. The decree issued by Judge Mañalac in 1941 was registered only on June 5, 1954. On that day, OCT No. 64 was issued to Yanas. On December 21, 1954 Acaylar registered the 1950 deed of sale. How Acaylar came to have possession of the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 64 and why it was not delivered to Yanas were not shown in the record. When Yanas discovered that his title was cancelled, he caused an adverse claim to be annotated on Acaylar's title. He stated in his adverse claim that he never sold his land and that the price of P200 was grossly inadequate because the land was worth not less than P6,000. His widow, Maria Aglimot and his children filed an action to declare void Acaylar's title. RTC and CA found the sale to be valid and binding.
Issue:
WON the deed of sale was fictitious and fraudulent.
Ruling: Yes. Among the badges of fraud and fictitiousness taken collectively are the following: (1) the fact that the sale is in English, the alleged vendor being illiterate; (2) the fact that his wife did not join in the sale and that her name is indicated in the deed as "Maria S. Yanas" when the truth is that her correct name is Maria Aglimot Yanas; (3) the obvious inadequacy of P200 as price for a 13-hectare land (P15.40 a hectare); (4) the notarization of the sale on the day following the alleged thumbmarking of the document; (5) the failure to state the boundaries of the lot sold; (6) the fact that the governor approved it more than two years after the alleged sale; (7) its registration more than three years later, and (8) the fact that the Acaylars were able to occupy only four hectares out of the 13 hectares and were eventually forcibly ousted therefrom by the children and agents of the vendor.
Acaylar testified that he signed the deed of sale and that one Tupas was an instrumental witness. The truth was that Acaylar never signed the deed and Tupas was not a witness. The instrumental witnesses were Hamoy and Paulino Empeynado. The deed of sale appeared as Document No. 113, page 57, Book 3, series of 1950 of Jose G. Empeynado's notarial register. Teofisto Realiza, the clerk in charge of the court archives, testified that Document No. 113 was an affidavit of Lorenzo Bajamunde, not a deed of sale signed by Yanas. However, five days later, he issued a certified copy of the deed of sale to Acaylar's lawyer. Presumably, the deed of sale was a part of the notarial report of Empeynado but he did not enter the sale in his notarial book.
Heirs of Claudel vs. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 85240. July 12, 1991)
Facts: Cecilio Claudel, acquired Lot No. 1230 of the Muntinlupa Estate Subdivision, declared the lot in his name, and dutifully paid the real estate taxes thereon until his death. The same piece of land purchased by Cecilio would, however, become the subject of litigation after his death. Two branches of Cecilio's family contested the ownership over the land — on one hand the children of Cecilio and their children and descendants, and on the other, the brother and sisters of Cecilio and their children and descendants. The HEIRS OF CECILIO partitioned the lot among themselves and obtained Transfer Certificates of Title on their shares. SIBLINGS OF CECILIO, filed a "Complaint for Cancellation of Titles and Reconveyance with Damages," alleging that 46 years earlier, or sometime in 1930, their parents had purchased from the late Cecilio Claudel several portions of Lot No. 1230 for the sum of P30.00. They admitted that the transaction was verbal. As proof of the sale, the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO presented a subdivision plan of the said land. Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint, disregarding the subdivision plan presented by the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO because the subject matter of the supposed sale is a real property and the absence of any document evidencing the sale would preclude the admission of oral testimony (Statute of Frauds). The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court stating that the Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts and not to consummated sales as in the case at bar where oral evidence may be admitted.
Issue/s: WON a contract of sale of land may be proven orally.
Ruling: No. The rule of thumb is that a sale of land, once consummated, is valid regardless of the form it may have been entered into. For nowhere does law or 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. However, in the event that a third party, as in this case, disputes the ownership of the property, the person against whom that claim is brought can not 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 purposes of proof, are met. The provisions of the Statute of Frauds pertinent to the present controversy, state: Art. 1403 (Civil Code). The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified: 2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as sat 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; The purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to 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. Therefore, except under the conditions provided by the Statute of Frauds, the existence of the contract of sale made by Cecilio with his siblings can not be proved.
