5.

Conlu v Araneta Therefore, at the time of Anselma’s death, the

GR NO. 4508 property was under Vito’s ownership.
March 4, 1910  As of this moment, the only property in question is the land owned by
By: Gayares Vito.
Topic: Unenforceable Contracts; Void Contracts  Hence, this case.
Petitioners: Marciana Conu
Respondents: Pablo Araneta for himself and as administrator of the estate of Vito ISSUE:
Tiongco and Espiridion Guanko W/N the contract of sale of real property from Anselma to Vito may be proven by
Ponente: Johnson, J. oral testimony?

HELD/RATIO:
RECIT-READY/SUMMARY: Conlu filed an action against Araneta to recover some
land. Conlu won except for one parcel of land, which is owned by Vito. Vito
YES - An oral contract for the sale of real estate, made prior to the enactment of
received the land through an oral contract. SC held the validity of the oral contract.
the Code of Civil Procedure, is binding between the parties, although it may still be
Araneta won.
necessary for the parties seeking to enforce such contract to take some action to
secure the execution of proper documents, but this requirement will not render the
DOCTRINE:
agreement invalid.
An oral contract for the sale of real estate is binding between the parties although
in may not be clothed with the necessary form.
Sec. 335 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions is now in force and it has
established a rule relating to the method of proving contracts of sale of real
FACTS:
property, and an oral contract for the sale of real property can now be proven
 Conlu commenced an action against Araneta to recover, as owners,
under the said section. However, this section makes no attempt to render oral
certain parcels of land together with damages.
contracts invalid. It simply provides that contract shall not be enforced by an
 Araneta alleges that they are the owners of the parcels of land in
action, unless the same is evidenced by some note or memorandum.
question.
 After hearing the evidence, the lower court found that Conlu was the
This rule does not make contracts, which have not been executed in writing,
owner of the land and was entitled to the possession of all of the parcels
invalid. The rule only requires a form. The contract exists and is valid, though it may
in question, except for one parcel that had a house on it, which belonged
not be clothed with the necessary form and effect of a noncompliance with the
to the estate of Vito Tiongco.
provisions.
o Evidence showed the ff:
 The house in question was originally the property of Additionally, if the parties in the trial make not objection to the admissibility of oral
Catalina Tiongco. Catalina left the house to her sister evidence to support a contract of sale of real property, it will be just as binding
Anselma by virtue of will before the former’s death. upon the parties as if it had been reduced to writing.
 Anselma gave Vito the property of the house in
question as his own property. Vito lived in the house In this case, 13 witnesses testified to sale of Anselma to Vito. Conlu also did not
until his death. He also made repairs and alterations object to these testimonies so in effect, she permitted the defendants to prove the
on his own account. oral contract of sale. Therefore, being fully proven, the oral contract is binding as if
 Anselma, however, agreed that Vito could have the it had been reduced to writing.
house as his own if he would pay her P3k. Vito paid.
 There was no formal conveyance of the property to Ruling of the lower court affirmed.
Vito but the property was recognized as his own.