Scribd
Upload
160 views2 pages

Purisima, Jr. V Purisima

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision ordering the petitioners to transfer ownership of disputed lots to the respondents. [1] The 1960 oral sale between the deceased Purisima Sr. and the respondents was fully consummated, as evidenced by a 1978 extrajudicial settlement acknowledged by the petitioners. [2] The statute of frauds does not apply since this was a fully performed contract rather than an executory one. [3] While the petitioners later obtained title over the whole property, the title is not indefeasible and does not override the respondents' ownership from the 1960 sale.

Uploaded by

Ariel Christen Ebrada
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
160 views2 pages

Purisima, Jr. V Purisima

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision ordering the petitioners to transfer ownership of disputed lots to the respondents. [1] The 1960 oral sale between the deceased Purisima Sr. and the respondents was fully consummated, as evidenced by a 1978 extrajudicial settlement acknowledged by the petitioners. [2] The statute of frauds does not apply since this was a fully performed contract rather than an executory one. [3] While the petitioners later obtained title over the whole property, the title is not indefeasible and does not override the respondents' ownership from the 1960 sale.

Uploaded by

Ariel Christen Ebrada
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PURISIMA, JR.

v PURISIMA
G.R. No. 200484, November 18, 2020
THIRD DIVISION, HERNANDO

Statute of Frauds, Sale, Reconveyance, Torrens Title

Doctrine:

In this case, the respondents claimed that their late brother sold them portions of a
property in 1960. The sale was not recorded, but they possessed the land since then. The
petitioners, as heirs, later obtained a title covering the whole property. The trial court
dismissed the complaint for lack of written evidence, but the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision, citing the 1978 Extrajudicial Settlement confirming the sale. The appellate court
ordered the petitioners to transfer ownership and possession of the lots to the respondents.
The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

Is the Extra Judicial Settlement made between the petitioner and respondent
valid?

YES. The Court of Appeals (CA) was correct in not applying the Statute of Frauds in this
case. The Statute of Frauds affects only the enforceability of a contract. In the Iñigo v.
Estate of Adriana Maloto case, the Supreme Court clarified that the Statute of Frauds is
applicable only to executory contracts, not to contracts that are already partially or fully
performed. The complaint in this case alleged a consummated contract of sale, and oral
evidence of such a consummated sale is not prohibited by the Statute of Frauds and can be
presented in court. Therefore, the CA's decision not to apply the Statute of Frauds is in line
with established legal principles.

The 1960 oral sale between the respondents and Purisima Sr. was fully consummated, as
evidenced by the 1978 Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased, Pascual Purisima, Sr.
and Sale, acknowledged by the petitioners themselves. The Statute of Frauds has no
application in this case, as a contract of sale, whether oral or written, is a consensual
contract, perfected by mere consent without a specific form required for validity. The sale
resulted in the transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised, as stated in
Article 1458 of the Civil Code.

The transfer of the properties to the respondents resulting from the 1960 sale by Purisima
Sr. effectively vested ownership to the respondents from that time. Despite the subsequent
issuance of an OCT in favor of the petitioners, the Court of Appeals correctly ordered
reconveyance of the properties to the respondents. The certificate of title held by the
petitioners is indefeasible but does not create or vest title. The Torrens system does not
protect those who obtained title through fraud or misrepresentation.

The Court has ordered reconveyance in cases where property was erroneously or
fraudulently titled in another person's name. An action for reconveyance based on an
implied or constructive trust is the proper remedy for aggrieved parties. The prescriptive
period for reconveyance is ten years from the issuance of the certificate of title, but this
period is not applicable if the complainant is in possession of the disputed property and the
registered owner was never in possession. In such cases, the action for reconveyance is in
the nature of an action to quiet title, which is imprescriptible.

Overall, the Court finds no error in the decision of the appellate court, as all factual issues
raised by the petitioners were already addressed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy