G.R. No. 129103 September 3, 1999 CLAUDIO DELOS REYES and LYDIA DELOS REYES, petitioners, vs. !E !ON.

COUR O" A##EALS and DALUYONG GA$RIEL, %&b%t't&ted b( )'% )e'r%, name*(+ ,ARIA LUISA G. ES E$AN, ,ARIA RI A G. $AR OLO,E - RENA O GA$RIEL, respondents. GON.AGA/REYES, J.: Sometime in November 1987, during the effectivity of the lease contract, Lydia de los Reyes verbally agreed to buy t o hundred fifty !"#$% s&uare meters !including the 17' s&uare meters leased by her%, and thereafter an additional fifty !#$% s&uare meters or a total of three hundred !($$% s&uare meters of )aluyong *abriel+s registered property, at three hundred pesos !,($$.$$% per s&uare meter or for a total amount of ,9$,$$$.$$. Receipt of the payment of the purchase price made in several installments by Lydia de los Reyes as ac-no ledged by Renato *abriel as evidenced by official receipts issued and signed by him dated November "#, 1987, November "', 1987, .anuary 8, 1988, /ebruary 1$, 1988, /ebruary 1#, 1988 and /ebruary "9, 1988 all bearing the letter head 0*abriel 1uilding.0 No deed of sale as e2ecuted covering the transaction. ,urchaser Lydia de los Reyes ho ever proceeded ith the construction of a t o3storey commercial building on the said ($$ s&uare meter lot after obtaining a building permit from the 4ngineer+s 5ffice in 6agum. 7cting on the information given by his daughter 8aria Luisa *abriel 4steban upon the latter+s return from a trip to 6agum that spouses 9laudio and Lydia de los Reyes ere constructing a t o3storey building on a portion of his land, )aluyong *abriel, through his la yer, sent a letter on 7ugust ($, 1989 to the )e los Reyes couple demanding that they cease and desist from continuing ith their construction and to immediately vacate the premises, asserting that the construction as unauthori:ed and that their occupancy of the sub;ect portion as not covered by any lease agreement. 5n September "$, 1989, spouses 9laudio and Lydia de los Reyes through counsel sent their letter reply e2plaining that the )e los Reyeses are the innocent party ho entered into the lease agreement and subse&uent sale of sub;ect portion of land in good faith and upon the assurance made by the former administratri2, 8aria Rita *. Rey, her nephe 6ony Rey, 8rs. /e S. *abriel and 8r. )aluyong *abriel himself that Renato *abriel is the ne administrator authori:ed to enter into such agreements involving the sub;ect property. )issatisfied ith the e2planation, )aluyong *abriel commenced an action on November 1<, 1989 against spouses 9laudio and Lydia de los Reyes for the recovery of the sub;ect portion of land before the Regional 6rial 9ourt, 1ranch 1, 6agum, )avao del Norte doc-eted as 9ivil 9ase No. "("'. =n his complaint )aluyong maintained that his son Renato as never given the authority to lease nor to sell any portion of his land as his instruction to him !Renato% as merely to collect rentals. Spouses 9laudio and Lydia delos Reyes countered that the sale to them of the sub;ect portion of land by Renato *abriel as ith the consent and -no ledge of )aluyong, his ife /e and their other children, and filed before the same trial court a complaint for specific performance, doc-eted as 9ivil 9ase No. "("9 against )aluyong and his children, namely Renato *abriel, 8aria Luisa *abriel 4steban and 8aria Rita *abriel 1artolome praying that the defendants therein be ordered to e2ecute the necessary deed of conveyance and other pertinent documents for the transfer of the ($$ s&uare meter portion they previously bought from Renato. 4ssentially, the issue here is hether or not the verbal agreement hich petitioners entered into ith private respondent Renato *abriel in 1987 involving the sale of the three hundred !($$% s&uare meter portion of land registered in the name of Renato+s late father )aluyong *abriel is a valid and enforceable contract of sale of real property. 1y la a 0ontra0t o1 %a*e '% per1e0ted at t)e moment t)ere '% a meet'n2 o1 m'nd% &pon t)e t)'n2 3)'0) '% t)e ob4e0t o1 t)e 0ontra0t and &pon t)e pr'0e. =t is a consensual contract hich is per1e0ted b( mere 0on%ent. 5nce perfected, the contract is generally binding in hatever form !i.e. ritten or oral% it may have been entered into provided the three !(% essential re&uisites for its validity prescribed under 7rticle 1(18 supra, are present.

G.R. No. L/11311

,a( 25, 1965

,AR A C. OR EGA, plaintiff3appellant, vs. DANIEL LEONARDO, defendant3appellee. $ENG.ON, J.+ >ell -no n is the general rule in the Statute of /rauds precluding enforcement of oral contracts for the sale of land. Not so ell -no n is e2ception concerning the partially e2ecuted contracts ? least our ;urisprudence offers fe , if any, apposite illustrations. 6his appeal e2emplifies such e2ception. =f partial performance of a sale contract occurs only hen part of the purchase price is paid, it surely constitutes a defective statement of the la . 7merican .urisprudence in its title 0Statute of /rauds0 lists other acts of partial performance, such as po%%e%%'on, the ma7'n2 o1 'mpro8ement%, rend't'on o1 %er8'0e%, pa(ment o1 ta9e%, re*'n:&'%)ment o1 r'2)t%, etc. 6hus, it is stated that 06he 0ont'n&an0e 'n po%%e%%'on ma(, 'n a proper 0a%e, be %&11'0'ent*( re1erab*e to t)e paro* 0ontra0t o1 %a*e to 0on%t't&te a part per1orman0e t)ereo1. 6here may be additional acts or peculiar circumstances hich sufficiently refer the possession to the contract. . . . 9ontinued possession under an oral contract of sale, by one already in possession as a tenant, has been held a sufficient part performance, here accompanied by other acts hich characteri:e the continued possession and refer it to the contract of purchase. 4specially is this true here the circumstances of the case include the ma-ing of substantial, permanent, and valuable improvements.0 !<9 7merican .urisprudence ? <<% =t is also stated that 06he ma7'n2 o1 8a*&ab*e permanent 'mpro8ement% on t)e *and b( t)e p&r0)a%er, in pursuance of the agreement and ith the -no ledge of the vendor, has been said to be the strongest and the most une&uivocal act of part performance by hich a verbal contract to sell land is ta-en out of the statute of frauds, and is ordinarily an important element in such part performance. . . . ,ossession by the purchaser under a parol contract for the purchase of real property, together ith his ma-ing valuable and permanent improvements on the property hich are referable e2clusively to the contract, in reliance on the contract, in the honest belief that he has a right to ma-e them, and ith the -no ledge and consent or ac&uiescence of the vendor, is deemed a part performance of the contract. 6he entry into possession and the ma-ing of the improvements are held on amount to such an alteration in the purchaser+s position as ill arrant the court+s entering a degree of specific performance.0 !<9 7merican .urisprudence p.7##, 7#'.% 7gain, it is stated that 07 tender or offer of payment, declined by the vendor, has been said to be e&uivalent to actual payment, for the purposes of determining hether or not there has been a part performance of the contract. 6his is apparently true here the tender is by a purchaser ho has made improvements. $&t t)e do0tr'ne no3 2enera**( a00epted, t)at not e8en t)e pa(ment o1 t)e p&r0)a%e pr'0e, 3't)o&t %omet)'n2 more, . . . '% a %&11'0'ent part per1orman0e. !<9 7merican .urisprudence p. 77".% 7nd the re*'n:&'%)ment o1 r'2)t% or the compromise thereof has li-e ise been held to constitute part performance. !See same title secs. <7(, <7<, <7#.% =n the light of the above four paragraphs, it ould appear that this case described several circumstance indicating partial performance@ relin&uishment of rights continued possession, building of improvements, tender of payment plus the surveying of the lot at plaintiff+s e2pense and the payment of rentals.

>e shall not ta-e, time to discuss hether one or the other or any t o or three of them constituted sufficient performance to ta-e the matter a ay from the operation of the Statute of /rauds. 4nough to hold that the combination of all of them amo&nted to part'a* per1orman0eA and e do so line ith the accepted basis of the doctrine, that 't 3o&*d be a 1ra&d &pon t)e p*a'nt'11 '1 t)e de1endant 3ere perm'tted to oppo%e per1orman0e o1 )'% part a1ter )e )a% a**o3ed or 'nd&0ed t)e 1ormer to per1orm 'n re*'an0e &pon t)e a2reement. !See <9 7merican .urisprudence p. 7"#.% Grant'n2 t)at none o1 t)e t)ree 0'r0&m%tan0e% 'nd'0ated ;re*'n:&'%)ment, %&r8e(, tender< 3o&*d separately %&11'0e, %t'** t)e combination o1 t)e t)ree 3't) t)e ot)er% a*read( ment'oned, amo&nt% to more t)an eno&2). Bence, a% t)ere 3a% part'a* per1orman0e, t)e pr'n0'p*e e90*&d'n2 paro* 0ontra0t% 1or t)e %a*e o1 rea*t(, doe% not app*(.