G.R. No. L-4002 - Pascual vs. Realty Investment, Inc.

Ramon Pascual, the plaintiff, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking to compel Realty Investment, Inc., the defendant, to sell him a parcel of land.
The subject property was described as having an area of 450 square meters, "more or less," with an initially agreed purchase price of P25 per square meter.

The plaintiff claimed to have occupied the property as a tenant since 1912 when it was under the administration of Angel Tuason.
In 1941, the property was transferred to Realty Investment, Inc. with the intention of subdividing and selling it to the public.

Upon learning that the property was being offered for sale, the plaintiff approached the defendant.
The defendant, through its manager Mr. Aquino, verbally agreed to sell the property at a reduced rate of P15 per square meter.
The plaintiff accepted the offered price, and it was understood by both parties that a sale agreement had been entered into, even though the sale was not finalized by the defendant.
Later, in February 1948, the defendant raised the price to P25 per square meter. The plaintiff agreed to the increased price, yet the defendant still failed to execute the sale.

Instead of filing an answer to the complaint, the defendant moved to dismiss the case.
The motion to dismiss argued that enforcing a verbal agreement to sell real property violated the Statute of Frauds as embodied in section 21(e) of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court.
The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint without pronouncing costs.
The plaintiff appealed the dismissal, contesting the application of the Statute of Frauds by invoking the doctrine of partial performance.

Whether the enforcement of a verbal agreement to sell real property is barred by the Statute of Frauds under section 21(e) of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the plaintiff’s claims of possession since 1912 and alleged improvements on the property can give rise to the exception of partial performance, thereby rendering the oral agreement enforceable.
Whether the allegations contained in the complaint sufficiently evince any acts of partial performance or reliance that would take the transaction outside the ambit of the Statute of Frauds.