Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 85240 July 12, 1991 HEIRS OF CECILIO (also known as BASILIO) CLAUDEL, namely, MODESTA CLAUDEL, LORETA HERRERA, JOSE CLAUDEL, BENJAMIN CLAUDEL, PACITA CLAUDEL, CARMELITA CLAUDEL, MARIO CLAUDEL, ROBERTO CLAUDEL, LEONARDO CLAUDEL, ARSENIA VILLALON, PERPETUA CLAUDEL and FELISA CLAUDEL, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF MACARIO, ESPERIDIONA, RAYMUNDA and CELESTINA, all surnamed CLAUDEL, respondents. Ricardo L. Moldez for petitioners. Juan T. Aquino for private respondents

SARMIENTO, J.:p FACTS: Basilio, also known as Cecilio Claudel, acquired from the Bureau of Lands, Lot No. 1230 of the Muntinlupa Estate Subdivision, Muntinlupa Rizal, with an area of 10, 107 square meters, with TCT No. 7471 issued by the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Rizal in 1923; declared the lot in his name in the Tax Declaration. After his death, his widow and son paid the taxes subsequently. Unfortunately, thirty-nine years after his death, same land purchased by Cecilio is now the subject of litigation. Ownership over the land was contested by two parties. The first party by the children of Cecilio (herein referred to as the HEIRS OF CECILIO), the other, by the SICLINGS OF CECILIO. The HEIRS OF CECILIO partitioned the disputed lot among themselves and obtained corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title on their shares in the year 1972. A Complaint for Cancellation of Titles and Reconveyance with Damages, was filed in the CFI of Rizal by the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO, on December 7, 1976, four years later after the partition of the disputed lot by the HEIRS. The SIBLINGS alleged that sometime in 1930, their parents had purchased from the late Cecilio portions of the Lot 1230 for the sum of P30.00, verbally. The

SIBLINGS, presented as proof for the sale, a subdivision plan of the said land, indicating the portions allegedly sold to the SIBLINGS. The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed the said complaint. As a result of the dismissal, they heed to the Court of Appeals, and the latter ruled in their favor, and ordered the cancellation of the Transfer Certificates of the HEIRS, from the subject Lot 1230, and execution of reconveyance to the SIBLINGS.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not a contract of sale of land may be proven orally: 2. Whether or not the prescriptive period for filing an action for cancellation of titles and reconveyance with damages (the action filed by the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO) should be counted from the alleged sale upon which they claim their ownership (1930) or from the date of the issuance of the titles sought to be cancelled in favor of the HEIRS OF CECILIO (1976).

RULING: 1. The general rule is that, once a sale of land is consummated, it is valid regardless to the form it was entered into. We cannot find any law nor in any jurisprudence prescribing that, any contract of sale should be put in writing for it to transmit rights of real property between the parties who agreed thereto. But if for instance, a third party contests the ownership of a property, the person against whom that claim is brought should fail to present a any proof of such sale and therefore has no means to enforce the contract , as depicted in this case. As an advent to these kinds of scenario, the Statute of Frauds was laid down requisites so that the parties to contract of sale of real property can be protected, as to its enforceability. The purpose of the Statute of Fraud is to prevent fraud and not encourage the same. The Statute of Frauds provides that for a contract of sale of a real property, it should be in writing for it to be enforceable. In the case at bar, the SIBLINGS has failed to prove or present any written agreement as to the contract of sale of the contested land, aside from the given fact that it was consummated orally. As a result, the sale was unenforceable.

2. The prescriptive period for filing an action for cancellation of titles and reconveyance with damages should be counted from the alleged sale of land

on which they claim ownership. Clearly the action has prescribed. The Civil Code provides that actions upon an oral contract must commence within 6 years. The contention of the Siblings that 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 is misplaced. The SC also expressed that the possession of the Torrens Title by the HEIRS carries more weight as proof of ownership than that of the survey or subdivision in the name of the SIBLINGS OF CECILIO.