G.R. No. L-273; March 29, 1947
CRESENCIA HERNANDEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ZACARIAS ANDAL, defendant-appellant. QUIRINO DIMASACAT, MARIA HERNANDEZ and AQUILINA HERNANDEZ, intervenors-appellants.

FACTS

Cresencia Hernandez (plaintiff-appellee), her sisters Maria and Aquilina Hernandez (intervenors-appellants), and two other siblings inherited a parcel of land (Lot No. 120073) from their father. On January 23, 1944, Maria and Aquilina sold their combined 1,800-square-meter share of this land to Zacarias Andal (defendant-appellant) for P860, based on a purported verbal partition among the heirs. Cresencia later attempted to repurchase the land from Andal, initially offering P150 (which she claimed was the price Andal paid) and later, in court, offering P860 plus expenses. Andal refused the initial offer but expressed willingness to sell for P860 plus P50 in expenses. On March 26, 1944, Andal resold the land back to the intervenors for P970, which included his expenses. Cresencia filed a complaint and supplemental complaint seeking to compel Andal to resell the land to her. During trial, when Andal’s counsel sought to present oral evidence to prove the verbal partition among the heirs, the court sustained Cresencia’s objection, ruling that such evidence was inadmissible under the Statute of Frauds (Rule 123, Section 21, and Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, and Article 1248 of the Civil Code). The lower court declared Andal’s resale to the intervenors illegal and in bad faith, ordered it annulled, and directed Andal to execute a deed of resale to Cresencia upon her payment of P860 plus P50 for expenses. The defendant and intervenors appealed, assigning as error the trial court’s refusal to admit oral evidence of the partition.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit oral evidence to prove a contract of partition among co-heirs on the ground that it was inadmissible under the Statute of Frauds.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court held that the Statute of Frauds (Rule 123, Section 21, and Rule 74 of the Rules of Court) applies only to executory contracts, not to executed or completed contracts. A partition agreement, once executed or performed by the parties taking possession of their respective allotted portions, is taken out of the operation of the statute. Since the intervenors alleged that a partition had been made, with each heir taking exclusive possession of their delineated share, the proffered oral evidence aimed to prove an executed partition. The trial court should have admitted this evidence to determine its veracity. The case was remanded to the lower court for a new trial to allow the presentation of evidence on the alleged partition. The Court noted apparent incongruities in the lower court’s judgment but focused its decision on the admissibility of evidence. (Justices Perfecto and Paras dissented, arguing that the litigation should be ended as the plaintiff was willing to pay the amount Andal demanded, making further legal technicalities and delay unnecessary).