Valid unwritten sale of land

This case involves a sale of land that was not put into writing. The names used in this article are not the real names of the persons involved.

Miggy owned a one-hectare parcel of land in Marikina City. When Miggy passed away, he was survived by two children, one of them being Pio. Pio received a written order from the City Treasurer to pay real property taxes for a land that he was not aware he, nor his father, owned.

Upon further investigation, Pio learned that this was occupied by his cousin, Alain. According to Alain, he had purchased the lot from Miggy before he passed away, but was unable to show any written proof of the sale. He claims that he had been paying Miggy until his passing, after which he directed payments to Miggy’s brother Jeriko.

Was the unwritten sale valid?

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the sale of the land, although verbal and unwritten, can still be considered valid and binding if it was at least partly executed.

Pio argued that the sale was unenforceable, however the Court clarified that even though the general rule is that sale of real property has to be in a public document, this does not affect the validity of the contract. Such requirement is limited to enforcing an unwritten contract, and this does not apply to contracts that are already implemented, partially or totally. The Court appreciated the fact that Alain had already taken possession of the property and made improvements, and this was a clear indicator that an oral sale of Miggy’s land was already executed. The Court also pointed out that ownership is vested in a buyer upon delivery, and that the possession of Alain, along with the testimonies he presented to support his claim, showed that the lot was delivered to him.

The Court did, however, clarify that the payments made to Jeriko were ineffective as he had no authority to receive payments on Miggy’s behalf after his passing. Thus, their obligation for the purchase of the land was not extinguished, making Alain liable to pay the balance to Pio and his sibling. (Benedicto Ocampo and Daisy Garcia-Ocampo v. Noblesa Batara-Sapad and Daisy Garcia-Ocampo G.R. No. 256343. April 02, 2025.)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]