ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | Nov. 18, 2024
Dear Chief Acosta,
May bisa ba ang kasunduan ng pagbebenta ng lupa kahit walang pinirmahang kontrata? — Madelina
Dear Madelina,
Ang mga kontrata ay karaniwang may bisa anuman ang kanilang anyo o porma, basta’t naroroon ang lahat ng mga mahahalagang requisites para ito ay maging balido.
Kaugnay nito, sa kasong Estate of Valeriano C. Bueno vs. Estate of Atty. Eduardo M. Peralta Sr. and Luz B. Peralta, G.R. No. 205810, ika-09 ng Setyembre 2020, ipinaliwanag ng ating Korte Suprema, sa pamamagitan ni Kagalang-galang na Mahistrado Rodil V. Zalameda, na ang kawalan ng kasulatan ng kasunduan sa pagitan ng mga partido ay hindi nangangahulugang wala itong bisa. Ang ganitong depekto ay maaaring maitama sa pamamagitan ng pagkilala o pagpapatibay nito:
“Our laws recognize four kinds of defective contracts. Among these is the unenforceable contract, or one that, for lack of authority, or of writing, or for incompetence of both parties, cannot be given effect unless properly ratified. But note that the lack of writing does not make the agreement void or inexistent. It merely bars suit for performance or breach. Such a defect can be cured by acknowledgment or ratification.
Quite recently, We had the opportunity to discuss the parameters of the Statute of Frauds in Heirs of Alido vs. Campano, which reiterated that an unenforceable contract under Article 1403(2) is not necessarily void since it can be ratified by failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the contract itself, or by the acceptance of benefits. The contract can be established by the express or implied conduct of the parties. The Court explained, thus:
Article 1403 (2) of the Civil Code, or otherwise known as the Statute of Frauds, requires that covered transactions must be reduced in writing, otherwise the same would be unenforceable by action. In other words, sale of real property must be evidenced by a written document as an oral sale of immovable property is unenforceable.
Nevertheless, it is erroneous to conclude that contracts of sale of real property without its term being reduced in writing are void or invalid. In The Estate of Pedro C. Gonzales v. The Heirs of Marcos Perez, the Court explained that failure to observe the prescribed form of contracts do not invalidate the transaction, to wit:
Nonetheless, it is a settled rule that the failure to observe the proper form prescribed by Article 1358 does not render the acts or contracts enumerated therein invalid. It has been uniformly held that the form required under the said Article is not essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction, but merely for convenience. The Court agrees with the CA in holding that a sale of real property, though not consigned in a public instrument or formal writing, is, nevertheless, valid and binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale of real estate produces legal effects between the parties. Stated differently, although a conveyance of land is not made in a public document, it does not affect the validity of such conveyance. Article 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a public instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy. x x x
While the Statute of Frauds aim [sic] to safeguard the parties to a contract from fraud or perjury, its non-observance does not adversely affect the intrinsic validity of their agreement. The form prescribed by law is for evidentiary purposes, non-compliance of which does not make the contract void or voidable, but only renders the contract unenforceable by any action. In fact, contracts which do not comply with the Statute of Frauds are ratified by the failure of the parties to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or by an acceptance of benefits under them.
Further, the Statute of Frauds is limited to executory contracts where there is a wide field for fraud as there is no palpable evidence of the intention of the contracting parties. It has no application to executed contracts because the exclusion of parol evidence would promote fraud or bad faith as it would allow parties to keep the benefits derived from the transaction and at the same time evade the obligations imposed therefrom. The RTC errs in summarily dismissing respondent's claim of ownership simply because the sale between her and Alido was not supported by a written deed. As above-mentioned, an oral sale of real property is not void and even enforceable and binding between the parties if it had been totally or partially executed.”
Alinsunod dito, ang ating batas ukol sa Statute of Frauds ay nag-aatas na ang mga sakop na transaksyon ay dapat nakasulat sa isang dokumento; kung hindi, ito ay hindi maipatutupad. Sa partikular, ang pagbebenta ng ari-arian ay dapat suportado ng isang kasulatan, dahil ang pasalitang pagbebenta ng ari-arian ay hindi maipatutupad. Gayunpaman, hindi ibig sabihin na ang mga kontratang tulad nito ay walang bisa o hindi wasto. Sa madaling salita, ang kawalan ng kasulatan o kontrata ay hindi dahilan para ipawalang-bisa ang transaksyon, lalo na kung ang kontrata ay napatupad na. Magreresulta sa panloloko kung hahayaan ang isang partido na tumanggap ng pakinabang mula sa kontrata ngunit hindi siya mapipilit na tumupad sa kanyang obligasyon.
Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.
Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.
