G.R. No. L-7747, December 24, 1914
SEVERO GOROSPE and GUILLERMO GOROSPE, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ANTONIO ILAYAT, ALEJANDRO ILAYAT, and BASILIDES ILAYAT, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
The plaintiffs, Severo and Guillermo Gorospe, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte for recovery of possession of a parcel of land. They alleged that they purchased the land pro indiviso from defendants Antonio Ilayat, Alejandro Ilayat, and Felipe Bartido on November 27, 1910, for P195, and that possession and material delivery were given to them around January 1911. They claimed that Antonio and Alejandro Ilayat later unlaw appropriated one-half of the property, causing damages. The defendants denied the plaintiffs’ ownership and possession, asserting that Antonio and Alejandro Ilayat had sold the same land to their co-defendant, Basilides Ilayat, on January 28, 1910, via a public instrument, and that Basilides had been in peaceful possession since. They further alleged that the land was part of a larger tract owned jointly by the father of the first two defendants and Felipe Bartido, and that Bartido conspired with the plaintiffs to prejudice the defendants. The trial court absolved the defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs’ alleged contract of sale was ineffective, null, and void because it was not in writing, and that even if such a sale occurred, the prior written sale to Basilides Ilayat should prevail. The plaintiffs appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs sufficiently proved their ownership and right to recover possession of the land based on an alleged oral contract of sale.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment absolving the defendants. The Court held that under Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ), a contract for the sale of real property cannot be proved by the testimony of witnesses alone; it must be evidenced by a written instrument subscribed by the party charged or by secondary evidence of such document. The plaintiffs attempted to prove the sale solely through witness testimony, including that of Felipe Bartido and one of the plaintiffs, and presented a copy of a possessory information title deed previously issued in favor of Bartido and Santiago Ilayat (defendants’ father). However, this documentary evidence could not substitute for the required written contract of sale. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the land was sold to them by a written instrument or that possession was delivered as alleged. Additionally, the Court noted irregularities in the defendants’ documentary evidence (Exhibit A), which purported to be a deed of sale to Basilides Ilayat dated January 28, 1910, but referenced a personal certificate of registration issued on February 21, 1910, indicating it could not have been executed on the earlier date. Nevertheless, this did not aid the plaintiffs’ case, as they still failed to meet the burden of proving their own claim of ownership by competent evidence. Thus, the complaint was properly dismissed.