G.R. No.

87550 February 11, 1991

Divine Victoriano
vs.
Hon. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Crispin Arcilla, represented by Ladislawa Masigla

Nature of Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari

Relevant Facts:
Victoriano was filing a case against the son of Masigla when she discovered that Lot No. 897
possessed by Masigla was registered under the name of her grandfather, Cirilo Tamio. She
secured an extrajudicial partition from all the heirs of her grandfather who waived their shares in
her favor. She, then, secured a title in her name.

The heirs of Crispin Arcilla, represented by Masigla, filed for the reconveyance of the said lot,
claiming that their father had bought it from Cirilo Tamio, and that they had been in possession
thereof since 1927. However, no deed of sale could be presented to evidence the transfer of the
property. All they could present were a "Sinumpaang Salaysay" dated January 20, 1927,
wherein the children of Cirilo Tamio authorized their mother to sell the lot to Crispin Arcilla; the
owner's duplicate of the title to the property in the name of Cirilo Tamio; and real property tax
receipts and tax declarations, the earliest of which is 1944, those prior were claimed to be lost
or destroyed.

Victoriano, on the other hand, presented the TCT in her name, a tax declaration and receipt
dated March 30, 1983.

The trial court ruled in favor of Victoriano but was reversed by CA because of the lower courts
reliance on the Statutes of Fraud on the account of Masiglas failure to prove the transfer of
property with the absence of deed of sale, and that Victoriano is barred from recovery of
possession by laches.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the Statutes of Fraud applies.
2. Whether or not Victoriano is barred from recovering possession of the lot based on the
principle of laches.

Ruling:
The petition is denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals as well as its resolution are
affirmed. Masigla and her co-heirs are declared as true owners of the property.

Ration Decidendi:
1. The Statute of Frauds is applicable only to executory contracts, not to contracts either
totally or partially performed. Performance of the contract, whether total or partial, takes
it out of the operation of the statute, and this performance must be duly proved. Masigla
 pointed out the circumstances to show performance on the contract or transfer of
ownership, and they are:
The possession of the owner's copy of the title;
Their undisturbed possession of the land for more than fifty years;
The possession of "Sinumpaang Salaysay;"
The introduction of improvements on the land;
The incurring of expenses for the resurvey of the land when they had the title in
the name of Cirilo Tamio reconstituted;
The tax declarations over the property in the name of Crispin Arcilla;
The religious payment of taxes over the property; and
The lack of contest from the immediate heirs of Cirilo Tamio, his wife and
children, on possession of the land and lack of claim over the property, which
negate any pretense that there was no sale in favor of Crispin Arcilla.

2. Titled lands cannot be acquired by prescription, however, Victorianos inaction for more
than 50 years bars her from acquiring possession of the land on the ground of laches.
While the Public Land Act provides that "no title to registered land in derogation to that of
the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession, the heir,
however, may lose his right to recover back the possession of such property and the title
thereto, by reason of laches.