AVERIAV.

AVERIA
G.R.No.141877
August13,2004
CarpioMorales,J.

FACTS:

Macaria Francisco (Macaria) and Marcos Averia contracted marriage which bore six issues, namely:
Gregorio,Teresa,Domingo,Angel,FelipeandFelimon.
MacariawaswidowedandshecontractedasecondmarriagewithRobertoRomero(Romero)whichbore
noissue.
RomerodiedonFebruary28,1968,[1]leavingthreeadjoiningresidentiallotslocatedatSampaloc,Manila.
InaDeedofExtrajudicialPartitionandSummarySettlementoftheEstateofRomero,thehouseandlot
containing150squaremetersat725ExtremaduraStreet,SampalocwasapportionedtoMacaria.
AllegingthatfraudwasemployedbyhercoheirsinthepartitionoftheestateofRomero,Macariafiledon
June1,1970anactionforannulmentoftitleanddamagesbeforetheCourtofFirstInstanceofManilaagainst
hercoheirsDomingoViray,etal.Thecasewaspendinglitigationforabouttenyearsuntilthedecisionofthe
CourtofAppealswhichadjudgedMacariaasentitledtoanadditional30squaremetersoftheestateofRomero
becamefinalandexecutory.
MacariassonGregorioandhisfamilyanddaughterTeresasfamilylivedwithheratExtremadurauntilher
deathonMarch28,1983.[3]
ClosetosixyearsafterMacariasdemiseoronJanuary19,1989,herchildrenDomingo,AngelandFelipe,
alongwithSusanPelayovda.deAveria(widowofMacariasdeceasedsonFelimon),filedbeforetheRegional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a complaint against their brother Gregorio and niece Sylvanna Vergara
representingherabsenteemotherTeresaAveria,forjudicialpartitionoftheExtremadurapropertyinclusiveof
the30squaremetersjudiciallyawarded. [4]ThecasewhichwasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.8947554isnowthe
subjectofthepresentdecision.
ThedefendantsGregorioandSylvannaVergara,intheirFebruary8,1989AnswertotheComplaint,
counteredthatGregorioandhislatewifeAgripinaspentforthelitigationexpensesinCivilCaseNo.79955,
upontherequestofMacaria,andthecouplespentnotlessP20,000.00forthepurposewhichamountduetothe
inflationofthePhilippinepesoisnowequivalenttomoreorlessP200,000.00;thatfrom1974to1983,Macaria
wasbedriddenanditwasGregorioswifeAgripinawhonursedandtookcareofher;thatbeforeMacariadied,
she in consideration of the court and other expenses which were defrayed by Gregorio and his wife in
prosecutingCivilCaseNo.79955andofthekindnessofthesaidcoupleincaringforher,verballysoldtothe
spousesGregorioandAgripinaonehalf()ofherExtremaduraproperty.
GregorioandSylvannafurthercounteredthattheplaintiffDomingosoldandassignedtothespouses
GregorioandAgripinahisonesixth(1/6)shareintheremainingportionoftheExtremaduraproperty.
GregorioandSylvannaconcludedintheirAnswerthattheplaintiffsarenotcoownersoftheExtremadura
propertyasthereofissolelyownedbyGregorioand1/6oftheotherhalfrepresentingDomingossharethereof
hadalreadybeensoldandassignedbyhim(Domingo)toGregorioandhiswifewhodiedonMay20,1987.[5]
RTCofManila,renderedadecisionofJuly19,1991 [7]creditingtheversionofthedefendants.TheCourt,
after a circumspect assessment of the evidence presented by both parties, hereby declares, that defendant
GregorioAveriathenamajorofpoliceprecinctinMakatiwasthepersonresponsiblefortheexpensesin
litigationinCivilCaseNo.79955,involvingthepropertyandtheirmotherhadindeedawardedhimwithportion
ofthepropertyandthatDomingoAveriasold1/6of[his]shareoftheremainingportionofthepropertyto
defendantGregorio.WHEREFORE,theremaining5/6ofofthepropertymaystillbesubjectofpartitionamong
theremainingheirsbutthesummarysettlementoftheremainingestateofthe5/6remainingportionoftheestate
...maybesoldandtheproceedsthereofbedistributedamongtheheirsinaccordancewiththealiquotportions
ofeachandeveryheirofthedeceasedMacariaFrancisco.
Theappellatecourtreversedthedecisionofthetrialcourt.Inreversingthetrialcourt,theappellatecourt,
notingthattheallegedtransfersmadebyMacariaandDomingoinfavorofGregoriowerebereftofanywritten
memoranda,heldthatitwaserrorforthetrialcourttorelysolelyontheevidenceadducedbythedefendants
consistingofthetestimoniesofGregorio,VeronicaBautista,SylvannaVergaraClutario,Atty.MarioC.R.
Domingo,FelimonDagondonandGregorioAveria,Jr.TheCAexplaineditsrulinginthiswise:
The alleged conveyances purportedly made by Macaria Francisco and plaintiffappellant Domingo Averia
areunenforceableastherequirementsundertheStatuteofFraudshavenotbeencompliedwith.Article1403,
2(e)oftheNewCivilCode.
 PetitionerscontendthatcontrarytothefindingsoftheCourtofAppeals,theywereabletoamplyestablish,
bythetestimoniesofcrediblewitnesses,theconveyancestoGregorioofoftheSampalocpropertyand1/6ofthe
remaininghalfrepresentingtheshareofDomingo.[12]
WithrespecttotheapplicationbytheappellatecourtoftheStatuteofFrauds,petitionerscontendthatthe
samerefersonlytopurelyexecutorycontractsandnottopartiallyorcompletelyexecutedcontractsasinthe
instantcase.ThefindingoftheCAthatthetestimoniesofpetitionerswitnessesweretimelyobjectedtoby
respondentsisnot,petitionersinsist,borneoutintherecordsofthecaseexceptwithrespecttothetestimonyof
Gregorio.[13]
Petitionersthusconcludethatrespondentswaivedanyobjectiontotheadmissionofparolevidence,hence,
itisadmissibleandenforceable[14]followingArticle1405[15]oftheCivilCode.[16]

ISSUE:

WHETHERORNOTTHEREWASASALEOFONEHALF(1/2)OFTHEDECEASEDMACARIAF.
AVERIAS INTEREST AND OWNERSHIP OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONERGREGORIOF.AVERIA(YES)

WHETHER OR NOT RECEPTION OF PAROL EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT RESPONDENT

DOMINGO AVERIA HAD ALREADY SOLD HIS ONE SIXTH (1/6) SHARE IN THE SUBJECT
PROPERTYINFAVOROFPETITIONERGREGORIOAVERIAISINACCORDANCEWITHLAW(YES)

RULING:

TheCourtfindsforpetitioner.
Indeed,exceptforthetestimonyofpetitionerGregoriobearingontheverbalsaletohimbyMacariaofthe
property,thetestimoniesofpetitionerswitnessesSylvannaVergaraClutarioandFloraLazaroRiverabearingon
thesamematterwerenotobjectedtobyrespondents.JustasthetestimoniesofGregorio,Jr.andVeronica
BautistabearingonthereceiptbyrespondentDomingoonJuly23,1983fromGregorioswifeofP5,000.00
representingpartialpaymentoftheP10,000.00valuationofhis(Domingos)1/6shareintheproperty,andof
thetestimonyofFelimonDagondonbearingonthereceiptbyDomingoofP5,000.00fromGregoriowerenot
objectedto.FollowingArticle1405oftheCivilCode, 17thecontractswhichinfringedtheStatuteofFraudswere
ratifiedbythefailuretoobjecttothepresentationofparolevidence,hence,enforceable.
ARTICLE1403.Thefollowingcontractsareunenforceable,unlesstheyareratified:

xxx

(2)ThosethatdonotcomplywiththeStatuteofFraudsassetforthinthisnumber. Inthefollowingcasesan
agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or
memorandumthereof,beinwriting,andsubscribedbythepartycharged,orbyhisagent;evidence,
therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its
contents:

xxx

(e)Anagreementfortheleasingforalongerperiodthanoneyear,orforthesaleofrealpropertyorofan
interesttherein;

xxx(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied),

Contrary then to the finding of the CA, the admission of parol evidence upon which the trial court
anchoreditsdecisioninfavorofrespondentsisnotirregularandisnotforeclosedbyArticle1405.
Inanyevent,theStatuteofFraudsappliesonlytoexecutorycontractsandnottocontractswhichareeither
partiallyortotallyperformed.18Inthecaseatbar,petitionersclaimedthattherewastotalperformanceofthe
contracts,fullpaymentoftheobjectsthereofhavingalreadybeenmadeandthevendeeGregoriohaving,even
afterMacariasdeathin1983,continuedtooccupythepropertyuntilandafterthefilingonJanuary19,1989of
thecomplaintsubjectofthecaseatbarasinfactheisstilloccupyingit.
 Inprovingthefactofpartialortotalperformance,oralevidencemaybereceivedaswhatthetrialcourtin
thecaseatbardid.NotedcivilistArturoM.Tolentinoelucidatesonthematter:
Thestatuteoffraudsisnotapplicabletocontractswhichareeithertotallyorpartiallyperformed,onthetheory
thatthereisawidefieldforthecommissionoffraudsinexecutorycontractswhichcanonlybepreventedby
requiringthem tobeinwriting,a fact whichisreducedtoa minimum inexecutedcontractsbecause the
intentionofthepartiesbecomesapparentbytheirexecution,andexecutionconcludes,inmostcases,therights
oftheparties.Howeveritisnotenoughforapartytoallegepartialperformanceinordertorenderthe
StatuteofFraudsinapplicable;suchpartialperformancemustbedulyproved.Butneitherissuchparty
required to establish such partial performance by documentary proof before he could have the
opportunitytointroduceoraltestimonyonthetransaction.Thepartialperformancemaybeprovedby
eitherdocumentaryororalevidence.19(Emphasis,underscoringanditalicssupplied)

Thetestimoniesofpetitionerswitnessesbeingcredibleandstraightforward,thetrialcourtdidnoterrin
givingthemcredence.
ThetestimonyofSylvanaVergaraClutario,daughterofTeresa,infactwasmorethansufficienttoprove
theconveyanceofhalfofthesubjectpropertybyMacariatoGregorio.
NotonlyonaccountofSylvanasmanneroftestifyingthathertestimonyshouldbegivenweight.Her
testimonywasagainsttheinterestofhermotherTeresawhomsherepresented,hermotherbeingalsoanheirof
Macaria.IfthetransferbyMacariatoGregorioofofthepropertyisupheldasvalidandenforceable,thenthe
shareoftheotherheirsincludingSylvannasmotherwouldconsiderablybereduced.
ThatAtty.MarioC.R.DomingowhowasadmittedlyMacariascounselinCivilCaseNo.79955(which,
aspriorlyreflected,entailedaperiodoftenyearsincourt),affirmedonthewitnessstandthatGregorioandhis
wifeweretheoneswhopaidforhisattorneysfeesamountingtoP16,000.0021shouldnodoubtstronglylend
credencetoGregoriosclaimtothateffect.
AstothesaleofDomingos1/6sharetoGregorio,petitionerswereabletoestablishsaidtransactionbyparol
evidence,consistingofthetestimoniesofGregorioAveria,Jr., 22VeronicaAveria23andFelimonDagondon24the
presentationofwhichwas,itbearsrepeating,notobjectedto.
AlbeitDomingoneverdeniedhavingreceivedthetotalamountofP10,000.00fromGregorioandhiswife,
hedeniedhavingsoldtoGregoriohisinterestovertheproperty.Suchdisclaimercannot,however,prevailover
thecategorical,positivestatementsofpetitionersabovenamedwitnesses.
Insum,notonlydidpetitionerswitnessesprove,bytheirtestimonies,theforgingofthecontractsofsaleor
assignment.Theyprovedthefullperformanceorexecutionofthecontractsaswell.