G.R. No. 141877 ; August 13, 2004
Gregorio F. Averia and Sylvanna A. Vergara, representing the absentee heir Teresa Averia, petitioners, vs. Domingo Averia, Angel Averia, Felipe Averia, and the Heirs of Felimon F. Averia, respondents.

FACTS

Macaria Francisco, widowed from Marcos Averia, married Roberto Romero. Upon Romero’s death, a property on Extremadura Street was adjudicated to Macaria. She later filed an action to annul a partition of Romero’s estate, which was litigated for ten years. After Macaria’s death, her children Domingo, Angel, Felipe, and Felimon’s heirs filed a complaint for judicial partition of the Extremadura property against their siblings Gregorio and Sylvanna Vergara (representing the absentee heir Teresa).
In their Answer, Gregorio and Sylvanna claimed Macaria had verbally sold one-half of the property to Gregorio and his wife in consideration for their payment of her litigation expenses and for nursing her during her illness. They further asserted that Domingo had sold his one-sixth share of the remaining half to Gregorio. After trial, the Regional Trial Court upheld these claims, finding the sales valid and thus limiting the property subject to partition.

ISSUE

Whether the verbal agreements for the sale of Macaria’s one-half interest and Domingo’s one-sixth share in the property are valid and enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds.

RULING

Yes, the agreements are enforceable. The Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts, including those for the sale of real property, to be in writing. However, an oral contract falling under the Statute is ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of parol evidence to prove it, or by the acceptance of benefits under it, as provided in Article 1405 of the Civil Code. In this case, the respondents did not object to the presentation of oral testimonies proving the existence and execution of the verbal sales during the trial. This failure constitutes a waiver of the Statute of Frauds defense.
Furthermore, the contracts were partially executed. Gregorio fully performed his obligations by paying the litigation expenses for Macaria’s prior case and providing care during her illness, which Macaria acknowledged by transferring the one-half interest. For Domingo’s sale, petitioners presented uncontroverted testimonial evidence and proof of payment establishing the transaction. The Court found these witnesses credible and their testimonies sufficient to prove both the agreements and their performance. Consequently, the oral contracts are taken out of the scope of the Statute of Frauds and are binding. The case is remanded to the trial court for partition of only the remaining portion of the estate not covered by these valid dispositions.