G.R. No. 5837 , September 15, 1911
CATALINO GALLEMIT, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CEFERINO TABILIRAN, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Catalino Gallemit and Ceferino Tabiliran, while residents of Dapitan, verbally agreed to jointly purchase a parcel of land from its original owner, Lui Ganong, for ₱44. They stipulated that each would pay half of the price (₱22) and that the land would be divided equally between them. Gallemit paid his share, but Tabiliran, despite later paying his share, refused to execute a deed of sale or partition the land. Tabiliran took exclusive possession, harvested abaca crops from 19041906 for his own benefit, and refused Gallemit’s demands for partition. Gallemit also supplied 1,500 seeds for planting on his prospective share, but these seeds were lost due to the delayed partition. Gallemit filed a complaint seeking partition, damages for the lost seeds, and a share of the abaca harvest. The trial court absolved Tabiliran, prompting Gallemit’s appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether an oral contract for the joint purchase of land is valid and enforceable to compel partition.
2. Whether Gallemit is entitled to partition as a co-owner and to damages for the lost seeds.
3. Whether Gallemit is entitled to a share of the abaca harvest.

RULING

1. Yes, the oral contract is valid and enforceable. The Supreme Court held that an oral contract for the sale of real estate, made prior to the Code of Civil Procedure, is binding between parties. Under Article 1278 of the Civil Code, contracts are binding regardless of form if essential conditions exist. The failure to object to oral evidence during trial waives the requirement for a written instrument. Here, testimony proved the joint purchase, and Tabiliran’s opposition to formalizing the deed did not invalidate the agreement. Thus, Gallemit and Tabiliran are co-owners under Article 392 of the Civil Code, and partition is mandated under Article 400.

2. Yes, Gallemit is entitled to partition and damages for the lost seeds. As co-owners, each party may demand partition at any time. The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and ordered partition through legal proceedings. Additionally, Tabiliran’s refusal to partition directly caused the loss of Gallemit’s seeds. Thus, Tabiliran is liable for indemnity of ₱50, the proven value of the seeds.

3. No, Gallemit is not entitled to a share of the abaca harvest due to lack of proof. While Tabiliran unjustly benefited from the abaca crops, the record did not establish the amount or value of the harvest. Without sufficient evidence, the Court could not award compensation for this claim.

DISPOSITIVE:
The appealed judgment is reversed. The Court of First Instance is directed to effect partition of the land and order Tabiliran to pay Gallemit ₱50 as indemnity for the lost seeds. No award is made for the abaca harvest, and no costs are awarded.