G.R. No. L-4250 August 21, 1952
CONSOLACION COCJIN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGRIPINA LIBO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On April 13, 1929, defendant Agripina Libo sold a one-hectare portion of her unregistered Lot No. 2086 to plaintiff Consolacion Cocjin for P50 and twenty cavans of palay, subject to repurchase within five years, via a private instrument (Exhibit B). The same day, the parties executed a lease contract (Exhibit C) whereby Agripina, as lessee, remained in possession, paying an annual rent of six cavans of palay. They agreed that once Agripina received the certificate of title (the lot was pending registration), she would deliver it to Consolacion and execute a public instrument of sale. Agripina later received additional palay from Consolacion, increasing the total price to P50 and twenty-seven cavans and one fanega of palay. When Agripina failed to repurchase in 1934, 1939, and 1944, the parties verbally agreed to extend the repurchase period for five years each time, up to April 13, 1949. Agripina repeatedly excused herself from executing a public instrument, claiming she had not yet received the certificate of title, but it was discovered in 1945 that she had actually received it in 1935. Agripina claimed she had repurchased the property in 1934 by paying P185.80, but the trial court found this untrue. Consolacion filed suit in 1947 to compel Agripina to execute a public instrument of sale with pacto de retro. The trial court ordered Agripina to execute such a deed, with repurchase rights until April 13, 1949. Agripina appealed, raising only questions of law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not applying the Statute of Frauds to the verbal extensions of the repurchase period and lease.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not applying the Statute of Limitations to bar Consolacion’s action.
3. Whether the trial court erred in ordering Agripina to execute a pacto de retro deed.

RULING

1. The Statute of Frauds is inapplicable. The Statute of Frauds (Section 21, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court) applies only to executory contracts. The verbal extensions of the repurchase period and lease, agreed upon in 1934, 1939, and 1944, were already performed and consummated. The action is not to enforce these extensions but to compel the execution of a public instrument for registration purposes, as the land had become registered. Moreover, the Statute of Frauds is a defense for the party prejudiced by the lack of writing; here, it is the vendee-lessor (Consolacion) who could have invoked it to deny the extensions and consolidate ownership, not the vendor-lessee (Agripina).
2. The Statute of Limitations does not bar the action. The right to compel execution of a public instrument arose in 1945 when Consolacion discovered Agripina’s fraud in concealing the certificate of title received in 1935. The suit filed in 1947 was within the prescriptive period. The original 1929 sale, though by private instrument, was valid and binding.
3. The trial court correctly ordered Agripina to execute the deed. However, since the repurchase period (April 13, 1949) ordered by the trial court had expired, the Supreme Court modified the decision. Agripina Libo is ordered to execute the deed of sale with pacto de retro within fifteen (15) days after this decision becomes final, with the period for repurchase being six months from the date this decision becomes final. If Agripina fails or refuses, the Provincial Sheriff shall execute the deed at her expense. The decision is affirmed with costs, subject to this modification.