Case Summary (G.R. No. 167109)
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff initiated this action to compel the defendant to execute a public document formalizing the sale of a described portion of land measuring 28 meters in width and 33 meters in depth. The property is bounded by specific landowners and a street, Calle Washington. The plaintiff contended that in 1899, he had entered into a verbal agreement with the defendant to purchase the entire lot, which included a camarin. Subsequently, the plaintiff resold a smaller portion of the lot back to the defendant.
Defendant's Position
In his answer, the defendant denied the plaintiff's claims, stating that he owned the property under dispute. He claimed that in August 1899, he had ceded the property to the plaintiff as a favor—a loan to be utilized for eight years. The arrangement allowed the plaintiff to extract rent while taking responsibility for maintaining the camarin and paying taxes. The defendant also sought the return of the property through a counterclaim upon the termination of the eight-year lease.
Trial Court Judgment
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to execute the necessary documents to formalize the sale of the portion of the lot that was not resold to the defendant. The defendant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the trial court's findings were inconsistent with the evidence presented; however, this motion was denied.
Evidence and Oral Contract
The trial court found no written evidence of the sale; only oral testimonies from witnesses were presented. After thoroughly examining the evidence, the court concluded that the defendant had indeed sold the property to the plaintiff around 1899 or 1900 for 1,050 pesos, confirming the existence of a verbal contract. This sale was recognized as complete, with the funds being received satisfactorily by the defendant, despite the absence of a written document.
Legal Considerations
The defendant argued that according to Article 1280 of the Civil Code, a sale of real estate must be evidenced by a public document to be valid. However, the court referenced previous case law, notably the case of Soriano vs. Cortes, which established that while certain contracts require written form to be enforceable, a verbal contract can still have legal effects
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 167109)
Overview of the Case
- The case involves a dispute between Chino Dievas (plaintiff) and Modesto Acuna Co Chongco (defendant) regarding the ownership and sale of a certain lot and a camarin.
- The plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to execute a public document for the sale of part of the lot as described in the complaint.
- The case was brought before the Court of First Instance of the Province of Occidental Negros.
Factual Background
- The entire lot in question is described with specific measurements: 28 meters in width and 33 meters in depth, bounded by various properties and Calle Washington.
- The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the lot from the defendant through a verbal contract in 1899, which included a camarin.
- Subsequently, the plaintiff resold a portion of the lot back to the defendant, specifically a portion 6 meters wide by 33 meters deep.
- The defendant denied the allegations and claimed ownership of the lot and camarin, asserting that he had ceded the property to the plaintiff as a loan for eight years, with conditions including the repair of the camarin and payment of taxes.
Legal Proceedings
- The t