MARCIANA CONLU, ET AL.

, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
PABLO ARANETA, for himself and as administrator of the estate of Vito Tiongco, and
ESPIRIDION GUANKO, defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
The plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants to recover, as owners, certain parcels
of land located in the pueblo of Molo, Province of Iloilo, together with damages, which parcels of land
are more particularly described in paragraph 6 of the complaint. The lower court found that the plaintiffs
were the owners and were entitled to the possession of all of the parcels of land described in said
paragraph 6 of the complaint, except that parcel, together with the house located thereon, described in
subsection (d) of said paragraph 6. This latter parcel of land the lower court held belonged to the estate of
Vito Tiongco.
The preponderance of evidence in this case establishes the fact that the house in question, with
the tile roof, was originally the property of Catalina Tiongco, sister of Anselma, which was afterwards left
to Anselma by virtue of the will. Anselma put Vito Tiongco into possession of the said tile-roofed house
as apparently his own property. He lived in the house from that date up to the time of his death in 1904.
Anselma agreed that he could have the house as his own if he would pay to her P3,000; and that
afterwards, and before the death of Anselma, he had paid this sum to the satisfaction of Anselma, and,
while there is no any formal conveyance of the property on the part of Anselma, he claimed it as his
property and it was recognized as his own, therefore, the trial court to held that the house was really the
property of Vito Tiongco,
ISSUE/s:
1.) May the said sale of real property be proved by oral testimony?
2.) Whether Anselma Tiongco sold the realty in question to Vito Tiongco.
HELD:
1.)
Yes. Section 335 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, now in force, has established a rule
relating to the method of proving contracts of sale of real property, and an oral contract for the sale of real
property cannot now be proven under said section 335 except "some note or memorandum thereof be in
writing and subscribed by the party charged or by his agent." However, said section (335) makes no
attempt to render such contracts [oral contracts] invalid. It simply provides that the contract shall not be
enforced by an action, unless the same is evidenced by some note or memorandum.
It does not attempt to make contracts invalid which have not been executed in writing. It simply
requires a form of contract. The contract exists and is valid, though it may not be clothed with the
necessary form and the effect of a noncompliance with the provisions of the statute is simply that no
action can be proved unless the requirement is complied with; but a failure to except to the evidence
because it does not conform with the statute is a waiver of the provisions of the law. If the parties to the
action, during the trial make no objection to the admissibility of oral evidence to support a contract of sale

of real property, and thus permit the contract to be proved, it will be just as binding upon the parties as if
it had been reduced to writing.
In the present case the defendants called thirteen witnesses, who each testified concerning the sale
of the parcel of land and the house in question by Anselma Tiongco to Vito Tiongco, in or about the year
1887, and no objection was made by the plaintiffs to the admissibility of this testimony. The plaintiffs did
not invoke the provisions of section 335. They permitted the defendants to prove the oral contract of sale.
The contract of sale, therefore, being fully proven, and under the provisions of the law an oral contract for
the sale of real property being binding and valid between the parties, we see no escape from the
conclusion that if the evidence was sufficient to show the sale, that the contract was binding, even though
it had not been reduced to writing.
2.)
Yes. The lower court found that a preponderance of the evidence that the sale had actually been
made. Upon a full consideration of the evidence adduced during the trial upon this question, we are
satisfied and so hold that a large preponderance of the evidence shows, beyond question, that said sale
took place and that Vito Tiongco, at the time of his death was the owner of the said parcel of land.

FELIX BUCTON AND NICANORA GABAR BUCTON, petitioners,

vs.
ZOSIMO GABAR, JOSEFINA LLAMOSO GABAR AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS:
This action for specific performance filed by the plaintiffs prays, inter-alia, that defendantsspouses be ordered to execute in favor of plaintiffs a deed of sale of the western half of a parcel of land
having an area of 728 sq. m. covered by TCT No. II of the office of the Register of Deeds of Misamis
Oriental. Plaintiffs' evidence tends to show that sometime in 1946 defendant Josefina Llamoso Gabar
bought the above-mentioned land from the spouses Villarin on installment basis, to wit, P500 down, the
balance payable in installments. Josefina entered into a verbal agreement with her sister-in-law, plaintiff
Nicanora Gabar Bucton, that the latter would pay one-half of the price (P3,000) and would then own onehalf of the land.
In January, 1947 the spouses Villarin executed the deed of sale of the land abovementioned in
favor of defendant Josefina Llamoso Gabar, Exhibit I, to whom was issued on June 20, 1947 TCT No. II,
cancelling OCT No. 6337. Plaintiffs then sought to obtain a separate title for their portion of the land in
question. Defendants repeatedly declined to accommodate plaintiffs.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a sale between Josefina and Nicanora.
HELD:
Yes. There is no question that petitioner Nicanora paid P1,500.00 to respondent Josefina as
purchase price of one-half of the lot now covered by TCT No. II, for respondent Court of Appeals found
as a fact "that plaintiffs really paid for a portion of the lot in question pursuant to their agreement with the
defendants that they would own one-half (1/2) of the land." That sale, although not consigned in a public
instrument or formal writing, is nevertheless valid and binding between petitioners and private
respondents, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale or real estate produces legal
effects between the parties.
Although at the time said petitioner paid P1,000.00 as part payment of the purchase price on
January 19, 1946, private respondents were not yet the owners of the lot, they became such owners on
January 24, 1947, when a deed of sale was executed in their favor by the Villarin spouses. In the
premises, Article 1434 of the Civil Code, which provides that "when a person who is not the owner of a
thing sells or alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes
by operation of law to the buyer or grantee," is applicable. Petitioners therefore became owners of the
one-half portion of the lot in question by virtue of a sale which, though not evidenced by a formal deed,
was nevertheless proved by both documentary and parole evidence.