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 Summary (G.R. No. L-8334)

Facts

Celestina Perez owned an unregistered 156-hectare parcel. In 1924 she purportedly entered a verbal agreement with her nephew by marriage, Santiago Babao, whereby he would clear, level, plant coconuts, rice, corn, bananas, and bamboo, and administer the land during her lifetime at his expense. In consideration, Celestina bound herself to convey one-half of the improved estate to Santiago or his wife upon her death. Between 1924 and 1946, Santiago allegedly expended ₱7,400 on improvements and forewent P39,600 in salary to administer the land. Shortly before her death in 1947, Celestina, by power of attorney, sold approximately 127.5 hectares, which Santiago claimed was in violation of their oral agreement and thus fictitious. Celestina died August 24, 1947; Santiago died January 6, 1948. Bienvenido Babao, as administrator, filed suit seeking conveyance of one-half of the parcel, annulment of the intermediate sales as void under the oral agreement, and alternatively, ₱47,000 in reimbursement.

Procedural History

Trial Court: Found the oral agreement enforceable by reason of part performance, annulled the sales, and ordered conveyance of half the parcel plus damages.
Court of Appeals: Reversed in toto for lack of jurisdiction (amount in controversy exceeded ₱50,000) but thereafter transmitted the records to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the alleged oral agreement for improvement and eventual conveyance of real property falls within the Statute of Frauds, rendering it unenforceable by parol evidence despite claimed part performance.

Applicable Law

– 1935 Civil Code of the Philippines (Statute of Frauds formerly §21, Rule 123, Rules of Court; now Art. 1403 Civil Code)
• Contracts not to be performed within one year
• Agreements for the sale of real property or interests therein
– Equity principles on part performance and estoppel by conduct

Analysis

  1. Statute of Frauds Scope
    The oral agreement required performance over Celestina’s lifetime (23 years) and conferred an interest in land, thus falling squarely under clauses (a) and (e) of the Statute of Frauds.

  2. Part Performance Exception
    While part performance can remove a contract from the statute if one party fully performs within one year, here the alleged improvements and administration extended far beyond a year, and full performance within a year did not occur.

  3. Certainty and Definiteness
    Equity will enforce an oral contract only if its terms and subject matter are certain and unequivocal. The agreement’s terms—allocation of planting areas, sp

...continue reading

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