Title
Babao vs. Perez
Case
G.R. No. L-8334
Decision Date
Dec 28, 1957
A disputed verbal land agreement between Santiago Babao and Celestina Perez was deemed unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds; Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8334)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Subject Matter
    • Plaintiff-Appellee: Bienvenido Babao, judicial administrator of the estate of the late Santiago Babao.
    • Defendant-Appellants: Florencio Perez, judicial administrator of the estate of the late Celestina Perez, and various purchasers of portions of a 156-hectare parcel in San Juan, Batangas.
  • Oral Agreement and Improvements
    • In 1924, upon his marriage to Maria Cleofe Perez (niece of Celestina Perez), Santiago Babao allegedly agreed verbally with Celestina Perez to:
      • Clear and level 156 hectares of forest land; plant thereon coconuts, rice, corn, bananas and bamboo; and administer the land during Celestina’s lifetime at his own expense.
      • Receive one-half of the land, with all improvements, upon Celestina’s death.
    • Performance by Babao:
      • Resigned from a monthly-salary position (P150) to undertake clearing and planting; incurred P7,400 in direct expenses and forewent P39,600 in salary (total P47,000 claimed).
      • Planted 5,000 coconut trees on 50 hectares and rice/corn on 70 hectares; administered the land from 1924 until 1946.
    • Pre-death sales:
      • Shortly before her death in August 1947, Celestina, through attorney-in-fact Leovigildo Perez, sold approximately 127½ hectares.
      • Plaintiff alleges these sales were fictitious and in violation of the oral agreement.
  • Procedural History
    • August 24, 1947: Death of Celestina Perez; intestate proceedings ensued with Florencio Perez appointed administrator.
    • January 6, 1948: Death of Santiago Babao; intestate proceedings with Bienvenido Babao appointed administrator.
    • Trial Court Judgment:
      • Declared the contested sales null and void.
      • Ordered conveyance of one-half of the land to plaintiff and payment of annual damages (P3,786.66 with 6% interest).
      • Directed survey for division, surrender of possession, and costs.
    • Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint; Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction and remanded but ultimately proceeded to decision.
    • On appeal, the Supreme Court considered motions on (a) Statute of Frauds, (b) admissibility of oral evidence, and (c) competency of certain witnesses.

Issues:

  • Statute of Frauds
    • Does the oral agreement fall under Article 1403(a) (not performable within one year) or 1403(e) (sale of real property interest) requiring a written memorandum?
  • Part Performance Exception
    • Can Babao’s expenditures and administration “take the case out of the statute” despite lack of writing?
  • Admissibility of Oral Evidence Against Deceased
    • Are testimonies of Bernardo Babao and Cleofe Perez barred by Rule 123 §26(c) when testifying to pre-death occurrences of Celestina Perez?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.