Photo from Unsplash | Frances Gunn
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
A land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can still be considered valid under Philippine law if it has already been partially or fully carried out. Possession, cultivation, and delivery of title can establish the transaction’s validity, but payment must still reach the rightful seller or their heirs.
This case involves a one-hectare parcel of land in Kaliwanagan, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, registered in the name of Marcos Batara. After Marcos died in 1974, he was survived by his two children, Noblesa (age 9) and Ernesto (age 13). The children were raised separately by relatives and were both unaware of their father’s land.
More than three decades later, in 2007, Noblesa received a notice from the local treasurer about unpaid real property taxes on the lot. Investigating further, she discovered that their cousin, Benedicto Batara Ocampo, had been occupying and cultivating the land since the early 1980s with his wife, Daisy.
Benedicto claimed that Marcos sold the land to him in 1972 for PHP 40,000 through a verbal agreement. He said that he paid the first PHP 3,000 directly to Marcos, and after Marcos’s death, continued paying the remaining PHP 37,000 in installments to Marcelo, who is Marcos’ brother and the children’s caretaker. He also claimed Marcos gave him the owner’s duplicate copy of the title after the initial payment.
Despite this, no deed of sale was ever executed or registered. In 2013, Noblesa filed a complaint for recovery of possession. The city court, RTC, and CA all ruled in favor of Noblesa and Ernesto, holding that the registered heirs had a superior right and that the alleged oral sale was unsupported by written proof or legal authority.
Given these facts, the issue that arose was whether an unregistered sale of land be legally enforced when the buyer took possession and made improvements—but remitted most of the purchase price to someone without legal authority?
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled partially in favor of Benedicto and Daisy, recognizing the oral sale as valid, but subject to the condition that the full purchase price must be paid to the rightful heirs.
The Court reiterated that under Article 1403(2)(e) of the Civil Code, a sale of land must generally be in writing to be enforceable; however, that rule does not apply where the contract has already been partly or fully executed. The Court emphasized:
“Taking possession of the property and making improvements thereon serve as indicators that an oral sale of a piece of land had already been executed.” (G.R. No. 256880, April 17, 2023)
Here, Benedicto had been in open possession of the lot since 1982, planted crops, paid realty taxes, and held the owner’s duplicate title. These facts supported his claim that the sale had been carried out.
Nonetheless, the Court found the transaction legally incomplete. Benedicto did not pay the remaining PHP 37,000 directly to Marcos or to his heirs. Instead, he paid Marcelo—who had no legal authority to accept payments for the estate.
Citing Cembrano v. City of Butuan, G.R. No. 82407 (1993), the Court explained:
“A payment in order to be effective to discharge an obligation must be made to the proper person—either the creditor himself or one authorized by law or the creditor to receive payment.”
Marcelo’s role as de facto guardian did not entitle him to accept payment, nor did it transfer any ownership interest to Benedicto. The Court also noted that by 1981, both Noblesa and Ernesto were of legal age and could have accepted the payments themselves, yet Benedicto failed to coordinate with them.
All in all, the Court ruled that although the sale was enforceable, the balance of the purchase price remained unpaid to the proper parties. It ordered Benedicto and Daisy to pay PHP 37,000 plus interest, and, upon full payment, Noblesa and Ernesto were ordered to execute a deed of sale in favor of the former.
Source:
Benedicto Batara Ocampo and Daisy Garcia-Ocampo vs. Noblesa Batara-Sapad and Ernesto C. Batara
G.R. No. 256343 | April 02, 2025
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.