Spouses Castro vs Romeo Miat 397 SCRA 271

SPOUSES VIRGILIO and MICHELLE CASTRO, MOISES B. MIAT and ALEXANDER V. MIAT, petitioners, vs.
ROMEO V. MIAT, respondent.

G.R. No. 143297 | 2003-02-11

DECISION

PUNO, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 43053, entitled "Romeo
V. Miat vs. Spouses Virgilio and Michelle Castro, Moises B. Miat and Alexander V. Miat," dated November 29, 1999.[1]

The evidence shows that the spouses Moises and Concordia Miat bought two (2) parcels of land during their coverture. The first is
located at Wawa La Huerta, Airport Village, Parañaque, Metro Manila[2] and covered by TCT No. S-33535.[3] The second is located
at Paco, Manila,[4] and covered by TCT No. 163863.[5] Concordia died on April 30, 1978. They had two (2) children: Romeo and
Alexander.

While at Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Moises agreed that the Parañaque and Paco properties would be given to Romeo and
Alexander.[6] However, when Moises returned in 1984, he renegotiated the agreement with Romeo and Alexander. He wanted the
Parañaque property for himself but would leave the Paco property to his two (2) sons. They agreed.[7]

It appears that Moises and Concordia bought the Paco property on installment basis on May 17, 1977.[8] However, it was only on
December 14, 1984 that Moises was able to pay its balance.[9] He secured the title over the property in his name as a widower.[10]
According to Romeo, Moises violated the agreement that their (Romeo's and Alexander's) names would be registered in the title once
the balance was paid.[11] Upon demand, Moises gave the owner's duplicate of the Paco property title to Romeo.

Romeo and Alexander lived on the Paco property. They paid its realty taxes and fire insurance premiums.[12] In early August 1985,
Alexander and his first wife left the house for personal reasons. In April 1988, Alexander agreed to sell to Romeo his share in the Paco
property for P42,750.00.[13] He received a partial payment of P6,000.00 from Romeo.[14] Nonetheless, he never executed a deed of
assignment in favor of Romeo, as he "had lots of work to do and had no time and x x x there [wa]s nothing to worry [as] the title [wa]s
in [Romeo's] possession."[15]

In February 1988, Romeo learned from his godmother in his wedding, Mrs. Rosalina Castro, mother of petitioner Virgilio Castro, that
she had given Moises P30,000.00 as downpayment for the sale by Moises of the Paco property to her son Virgilio.[16]

On December 1, 1988, Romeo was brought by petitioner Virgilio Castro to the chambers of Judge Anunciacion of the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Manila where the status of the Paco property was discussed.[17] On December 16, 1988, he received a letter from
petitioner Castro's lawyer asking for a conference. Romeo was informed that the Paco property had been sold to Castro by Moises by
virtue of a deed of sale dated December 5, 1988[18] for ninety-five thousand (P95,000.00) pesos.[19]

Ceferino Miat, brother of petitioner Moises,[20] testified that even before the death of Concordia[21] there was already an agreement
that the Paco property would go to Romeo and Alexander.[22] This was reiterated at the deathbed of Concordia.[23] When Moises
returned to Manila for good, the agreement was reiterated[24] in front of the extended Miat family members.[25] Initially, Romeo and
Alexander orally[26] divided the Paco property between themselves.[27] Later, however, Alexander sold his share to Romeo.[28]
Alexander was given P6,000.00 as downpayment. This was corroborated by Pedro Miranda and Virgilio Miat. Miranda worked with
Moises at the Bayview Hotel and the Hotel Filipinas.[29] His wife is the cousin of Romeo and Alexander.[30] Virgilio is the brother of
Moises.

Moises confirmed that he and his wife Concordia bought the Paco property on installment from the Fraval Realty, Inc. There was still a
balance of P12,000.00 on the lot at the time of his wife's death.[31] He paid P3,500.00 in 1981[32] and P8,500.00 in 1984.[33] He
registered the title in his name. Romeo then borrowed the title as he was going to mortgage it to his friend Lorenzo.[34]

Later, Moises ran into financial difficulties and he mortgaged for P30,000.00 the Paco property to the parents of petitioner Virgilio
Castro.[35] He informed Romeo and Alexander that he would be forced to sell the Paco property if they would not redeem the
mortgage. He accompanied his children to the Manila City Hall to discuss its sale with a judge and a lawyer. Also present in the
meeting were petitioner Virgilio Castro and his parents. After the conference, he proceeded to sell the property to the petitioners-
spouses Castro.[36]

Page 1 of 8
Alexander testified that after the sale, his father got one-third (1/3) of the proceeds while he received two-thirds (2/3). Romeo did not
get a single centavo but was given the right to till their Nueva Ecija property.[37] From his share of the proceeds, Alexander intended
to return to Romeo the P6,000.00 given him earlier by the latter. He considered the money to be a personal debt due Romeo, not
Romeo's downpayment of his share in the Paco property.[38]

The buyer of the property, petitioner Virgilio P. Castro, testified that he informed Romeo that his father Moises was selling the Paco
property. Romeo replied: "Bahala siya."[39] The second time he informed Romeo about the pending sale was when he brought
Romeo, Alexander and Moises to Judge Anunciacion to "consult him [as to] who has [the] right over the [Paco] property."[40] He
further declared that he "went to the Metropolitan Trial Court because [he] wanted to be sure whether [he] could buy the property."[41]
During the meeting, he was told by Romeo that the Paco property was already given to him (Romeo) by Moises. He admitted knowing
that the title to the Paco property was in the possession of Romeo.[42] However, he proceeded with the sale. Moises assured him that
he would be able to get the title from Romeo.[43]

These events precipitated the case at bar. Romeo filed an action to nullify the sale between Moises and the Castro spouses; to
compel Moises and Alexander to execute a deed of conveyance or assignment of the Paco property to him upon payment of the
balance of its agreed price; and to make them pay damages.[44]

After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision,[45] which in its dispositive portion states as follows:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby orders the following: 1) Defendant Alexander V. Miat to execute a deed of
sale of his share in the property upon payment by plaintiff Romeo of the balance of the purchase price in the sum of P36,750.00; 2)
Plaintiff Romeo V. Miat to recognize as valid the sale of defendant Moises' share in the house and lot located at No. 1495-C Fabie
Estate, Paco, Manila; 3) the dismissal of defendants' counter-claim; and 4) defendants to pay the costs of suit."

Both parties appealed to Court of Appeals. On November 29, 1999, the appellate Court modified the Decision as follows:[46]

"WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is MODIFIED as follows:

(1) The deed of sale entered into between defendants-appellants Moises Miat and spouses Virgilio and Michelle Castro is hereby
NULLIFIED.

(2) Defendant-appellants Moises Miat and Alexander Miat are ordered to execute a deed of conveyance over the Paco property with
TCT No. 16383 (sic) in favor of plaintiff-appellant Romeo Miat, upon payment by Romeo Miat of the balance of the purchase price in
the sum of P36,750.00.

(3) Defendants-appellants are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff-appellant attorney's fees in the amount of P30,000.00 and
to pay the costs of suit."

Reconsideration was denied on May 17, 2000.

Hence, this petition where the petitioners assign the following errors:

"THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND DID PETITIONERS AN INJUSTICE IN MODIFYING OR
REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED MARCH 17, 1993 WHICH ORDERED RESPONDENT ROMEO MIAT TO
RECOGNIZE AS VALID THE DEED OF SALE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PETITIONERS MOISES MIAT AND SPS. VIRGILIO AND
MICHELLE CASTRO PERTAINING TO PETITIONER MOISES MIAT'S SHARE IN THE HOUSE AND LOT LOCATED IN PACO,
MANILA, WHEN IT DECLARED SAID DEED OF SALE NULLIFIED.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING OR UPHOLDING THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION
ORDERING ALEXANDER MIAT AND INCLUDING MOISES MIAT TO EXECUTE A DEED OF CONVEYANCE OVER THE PACO
PROPERTY WITH TCT NO. 16383 IN FAVOR OF ROMEO MIAT UPON PAYMENT BY THE LATTER OF THE BALANCE OF THE
PURCHASE PRICE IN THE SUM OF P36,750.00.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FURTHER ORDERING PETITIONERS TO PAY RESPONDENT,
JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF P30,000.00 AND AFFIRMING THE COURT A QUO'S ORDER
FOR THE PETITIONERS TO PAY THE COST OF SUIT."[47]

The issues can be simplified thus:

1. Whether the Paco property is conjugal or capital;

2. Whether there was a valid oral partition covering the said property; and

3. Whether the spouses Castro were buyers in good faith.

Page 2 of 8
I

The petitioners contend that the Paco property is the capital property of Moises. They allege that the spouses Moises and Concordia
purchased the property on installment basis in 1977 but stress that it was Moises who paid the balance of twelve thousand
(P12,000.00) pesos in 1984. At that time, Concordia had long been dead. She died in 1978.

We disagree.

Since Moises and Concordia were married before the effectivity of the Family Code, the provisions of the New Civil Code apply.

Article 153(1) of the New Civil Code[48] provides as follows:

"The following are conjugal partnership property:

(1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the
partnership, or for only one of the spouses; x x x."

The records show that the Paco property was acquired by onerous title during the marriage out of the common fund. It is clearly
conjugal property.

Petitioners also overlook Article 160 of the New Civil Code. It provides that "all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife." This article does not require proof
that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership. The presumption applies even when the manner in which the property
was acquired does not appear.[49]

Petitioners' reliance on Lorenzo vs. Nicolas[50] is misplaced. That case involved two (2) parcels of land that Magdalena Clemente
purchased on installment and started paying for when she was not yet married to Manuel Lorenzo. When she married Manuel
Lorenzo she continued to pay the installments in her own name. Upon completion of payment, the deed of final conveyance was
executed in her sole favor and the land was registered in the exclusive name of Magdalena Clemente. The Court ruled that the two (2)
parcels of land were the paraphernal properties of Magdalena Clemente, thus:

"x x x the fact that all receipts for installments paid even during the lifetime of the late husband Manuel Lorenzo were issued in the
name of Magdalena Clemente and that the deed of sale or conveyance of parcel no. 6 was made in her name in spite of the fact that
Manuel Lorenzo was still alive shows that the two parcels of land belonged to Magdalena Clemente."[51] (emphasis supplied)

In the case at bar, Moises and Concordia bought the Paco property during their marriage - Moises did not bring it into their marriage,
hence it has to be considered as conjugal.

Likewise, Jovellanos vs. Court of Appeals[52] cited by the petitioners is inapropos. In said case, Daniel Jovellanos, while he was still
married to his first wife, Leonor Dizon, entered into a "contract of lease and conditional sale" with Philamlife. He continued paying the
rental after the death of his first wife and during the subsistence of his marriage with his second wife, Anette Jovellanos. He completed
the payment during the existence of his second marriage. The Court ruled that the property belonged to the conjugal partnership with
the second wife as Daniel Jovellanos "acquired ownership thereof only upon full payment of the said amount hence, although he had
been in possession of the premises since September 2, 1955, it was only on January 8, 1975 that the Philamlife executed the deed of
absolute sale thereof in his favor. x x x Since as early as 1967, he was already married to Annette H. Jovellanos, this property
necessarily belonged to his conjugal partnership with his second wife."[53] In the case at bar, Moises and Concordia executed a Deed
of Sale with Mortgage. The contract is one of sale - the title passed to them upon delivery of the Paco property.[54] In fine, title was
gained during the conjugal partnership.

II

The next issue is whether the oral partition between Moises and his sons, Romeo and Alexander, involving the said property is valid.
In ruling in favor of its validity which we affirm, the appellate court relied on a portion of Moises' letter to Romeo, which reads as
follows:[55]

"KAYA PAG-USAPAN LANG NINYONG MABUTI ANG ANONG BALAK AT GUSTO NINYONG PAGHATI SA BAHAY, AT YAN AY
PAGPAPASIYAHAN KO KONG (sic) MAKAKABUTI SA INYONG DALAWA. AT WALA AKONG HIGIT NA PAPABURAN SA INYONG
DALAWA PAREHO KAYONG MAHAL SA AKIN, HINDI AKO TULAD SA IBANG MAGULANG NA HINDI PAREHO ANG PAGTINGIN SA
MGA ANAK. ANG BAHAY[56] AY PARA SA INYONG DALAWA, LALO NA NGAYONG MAY ASAWA NA KAYONG PAREHO. x x x" [All
caps in the original]

Ceferino Miat, brother of Moises, testified that before Concordia died, there was an agreement that the Parañaque property would go
to Moises while the Paco property would go to Romeo and Alexander. This was reiterated at the deathbed of Concordia. When Moises

Page 3 of 8
returned to Manila for good, the agreement was affirmed in front of the extended Miat family members. Initially, Romeo and Alexander
orally divided the Paco property between them. Later, Alexander sold his share to Romeo.

This agreement was attested to by the extended Miat Family members in a document marked as Exhibit "D," which reads as follows:
[57]

"Pebrero 18, 1989

SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY

SA MGA KINAUUKULAN,

Kami, na nakalagda sa ibaba, ay nanunumpa sa harapan ng Punong Barangay, na si G. REYNALDO P. WONG:

Na kami ay mga saksi sa kasunduan nina G. MOISES B. MIAT, asawa ng yumao na, na si Gng. CONCORDIA VALENZUELA MIAT, at
mga anak nitong sina G. ROMEO V. MIAT at G. ALEXANDER V. MIAT:

Na ang kasunduan ay ang mga sumusunod:

1. Na ang pag-aaring lupa (132 sq. m.) ng mag-asawa (MOISES at CONCORDIA) sa Airport Village sa Parañaque, Metro Manila ay
mapupunta kay G. MOISES B. MIAT;

2. Na ang pag-aaring lupa at bahay (70 sq. m.) ng mag-asawa ring nabanggit ay sa magkapatid na ROMEO at ALEXANDER
mapupunta at ito ay nasa address na 1495-C FABIE, PACO, MANILA.

MGA SUMUMPA:[58]

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)

1) Ceferino B. Miat 6) Lorenzo C. Valenzuela

(kapatid ni Moises) (kapatid ni Concordia)

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)

2) Avelina J. Miat 7) Patricio C. Valenzuela

(asawa ni Ceferino) (kapatid ni Concordia)

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)

3) Virgilio Miat 8) Victor C. Valenzuela

(kapatid ni Moises) (kapatid ni Concordia)

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)

4) Aurea Miat-Joson 9) Elsa P. Miranda

(kapatid ni Moises)

(Sgd.)

5) Jose A. Joson

(asawa ni Aurea)

(Sgd.)

REYNALDO P. WONG

Kapitan ng Barangay

Sta. Maria, Licab, N.E."(emphasis supplied)

Page 4 of 8
The consideration for the grant to Romeo and Alexander of the Paco property was best expressed by Moises himself in his letter to
Romeo, which reads as follows:

"Labis akong nagpapasalamat at nauunawaan ninyo ang mga pagkakamali ko at mga kasalanan kong nagawa sa inyong mag-iina,
huwag kayong mag-alala at lahat nang naipundar namin nang (sic) inyong nanay ay sa inyong dalawang magkapatid mapupunta."[59]

We also hold that the oral partition between Romeo and Alexander is not covered by the Statute of Frauds. It is enforceable for two
reasons. Firstly, Alexander accepted the six thousand (P6,000.00) pesos given by Romeo as downpayment for the purchase of his
share in the Paco property. Secondly, Romeo and his witnesses, Ceferino Miat and Pedro Miranda, who testified regarding the sale of
Alexander's share to Romeo, were intensely questioned by petitioners' counsel.[60]

In the recent case of Pada-Kilario vs. Court of Appeals, we held:[61]

"[N]o law requires partition among heirs to be in writing and be registered in order to be valid. The requirement in Sec. 1, Rule 74 of
the Revised Rules of Court that a partition be put in a public document and registered, has for its purpose the protection of creditors
and the heirs themselves against tardy claims. The object of registration is to serve as constructive notice to others. It follows then that
the intrinsic validity of partition not executed with the prescribed formalities is not undermined when no creditors are involved. Without
creditors to take into consideration, it is competent for the heirs of an estate to enter into an agreement for distribution thereof in a
manner and upon a plan different from those provided by the rules from which, in the first place, nothing can be inferred that a writing
or other formality is essential for the partition to be valid. The partition of inherited property need not be embodied in a public
document so as to be effective as regards the heirs that participated therein. The requirement of Article 1358 of the Civil Code that
acts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property, must
appear in a public instrument, is only for convenience, non-compliance with which does not affect the validity or enforceability of the
acts of the parties as among themselves. And neither does the Statute of Frauds under Article 1403 of the New Civil Code apply
because partition among heirs is not legally deemed a conveyance of real property, considering that it involves not a transfer of
property from one to the other but rather, a confirmation or ratification of title or right of property that an heir is renouncing in favor of
another heir who accepts and receives the inheritance. x x x."

III

The appellate court also correctly held that the petitioners-spouses Castro were not buyers in good faith. A purchaser in good faith is
one who buys property and pays a full and fair price for it at the time of the purchase or before any notice of some other person's
claim on or interest in it. The rule is settled that a buyer of real property, which is in the possession of persons other than the seller,
must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in possession. Otherwise, without such inquiry, the buyer can hardly be
regarded as buyer in good faith.[62]

This finding of the appellate court that the Castro spouses were not buyers in good faith is supported by evidence. Petitioner Virgilio
Castro admitted in his testimony that Romeo told him that Moises had given the Paco property to them. In fact, they consulted Judge
Anunciacion on who had the right to the property - Moises or Romeo. As well pointed out by the appellate court:

"In the case at bench, the said spouses have actual knowledge of the adverse claim of plaintiff-appellant. The most protuberant index
that they are not buyers in good faith is that before the sale, Virgilio Castro talked with Romeo Miat on the supposed sale. Virgilio
testified that together with Romeo, Alexander and Moses Miat, they went to Judge Anunciacion of Manila in order to find out if Romeo
has a right over the property. Romeo told Virgilio in that meeting that Romeo has a right over the Paco property by virtue of an oral
partition and assignment. Virgilio even admitted that he knew Romeo was in possession of the title and Romeo then insisted that he is
the owner of the property.

xxxxxxxxx

"Virgilio Castro is further aware that plaintiff is in possession of the property, they being neighbors. A purchaser who was fully aware of
another person's possession of the lot he purchased cannot successfully pretend to be an innocent purchaser for value."[63]

It is abundantly clear that the petitioners-spouses Castro did not buy the Paco property in good faith. They have no right to the
property.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. CV No. 43053 is affirmed. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.

[1] The appellate court's decision modified that rendered by the trial court on March 17, 1993 in Civil Case No. 89-48182.

Page 5 of 8
[2] TSN (Romeo Miat), December 9, 1989, p. 9.

[3] Exhibit "I," Original Record, p. 258. TCT No. S-27754 covering 264 square meters (Exhibit "G," Original Record, pp. 254-255), was
issued originally to Moises and Concordia Miat on May 6, 1976. After ½ of the property was sold to Trancilacion Miranda Ligas [TSN
(Romeo Miat), February 21, 1991, p. 28], TCT No. S-33535 covering 132 square meters, was issued on August 30, 1976.

[4] TSN (Romeo Miat), December 9, 1989, pp. 7-8.

[5] Exhibit "C," Original Record, pp. 184-186.

[6] TSN (Romeo Miat), August 7, 1990, p. 9.

[7] Id., pp. 11-12.

[8] Downpayment in the amount of P1,050.00, Exhibit "B," Original Record, p. 182.

[9] Id., p. 9.

[10] Id., p. 6.

[11] Id., pp. 13-14.

[12] Id., p. 15.

[13] Id., p. 23.

[14] Id., pp. 25-26.

[15] Id., p. 27.

[16] Id., p. 28.

[17] TSN (Romeo Miat), August 7, 1990, p. 32 [also February 21, 1991, pp. 42-43].

[18] Id., p. 33.

[19] Original Record, p. 9 (Deed of Absolute Sale, Annex "B," Complaint, Civil Case No. 89-48082, RTC, Branch 10, Manila).

[20] TSN (Ceferino Miat), January 25, 1990, p. 6.

[21] TSN (Romeo Miat), December 9, 1989, p. 8.

[22] TSN (Ceferino Miat), April 5, 1990, p. 8.

[23] Id., p.8.

[24] TSN (Ceferino Miat), January 25, 1990, p. 11.

[25] Id., p. 12.

[26] TSN (Ceferino Miat), April 5, 1990, p. 14.

[27] TSN (Ceferino Miat), January 25, 1990, p. 12.

[28] Id., p. 13.

[29] TSN (Pedro Miranda), April 5, 1990, p. 21.

[30] TSN (Pedro Miranda), April 5, 1990, p. 20.

[31] TSN (Moises Miat), September 5, 1991, p. 7.

[32] Id., p. 8.

Page 6 of 8
[33] Id., p. 9.

[34] TSN (Moises Miat), May 2, 1991, p. 6. In the TSN (Moises Miat), September 5, 1991, p. 16, Moises clarified the mortgage to be a
"panghahawakan lang ni Lorenzo." A contrary testimony was given by Alex [TSN (Alex Miat), August 4, 1992, pp. 40-41]: Romeo got
the title from their father to lend to Ramon Lorenzo who was using the title to borrow money for himself (Ramon Lorenzo).

[35] TSN (Moises Miat), May 2, 1991, pp. 12-13. In the TSN (Moises Miat), September 5, 1991, pp. 17-22, Moises clarified the
mortgage to be actually a promissory note for P30,000.00, with the condition that, if the same would not be paid after one (1) year, he
would sell the property to Mr. & Mrs. Levi Castro for P85,000.00 (actually P95,000.00 as seen in said promissory note, Exhibit "K,"
Original Record, p. 262).

[36] TSN (Moises Miat), May 2, 1991, pp. 14-15.

[37] TSN (Alex Miat), August 4, 1992, p. 12.

[38] Id., pp. 21-26.

[39] TSN (Virgilio Castro), August 4, 1992, pp. 50-51.

[40] Id., p. 57.

[41] Id., p. 60.

[42] Id., p. 54.

[43] Id., p. 61.

[44] Original Record, pp. 1-9 (Complaint, Civil Case No. 89-48082, RTC, Branch 10, Manila).

[45] Original Record, pp. 311-314.

[46] Rollo, pp. 25-43.

[47] Id., p. 17.

[48] Now Article 117(1) of the Family Code.

[49] Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 229 (1997).

[50] 91 Phil. 686 (1952).

[51] Lorenzo vs. Nicolas, 91 Phil. 686, 692-693 (1952).

[52] 210 SCRA 126 (1992).

[53] Id., pp. 133-135.

[54] Salazar vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 317 (1996).

[55] Original Record, p. 260, lines 19-24 of Exhibit "J-1," letter dated July 31, 1983.

[56] In Exhibit "D," infra, the second (2nd) kasunduan speaks of "lupa at bahay (70 sq. m.)" going to Romeo and Alexander.

[57] TSN (Romeo Miat), August 7, 1990 [Original Record, p. 187].

[58] Other descriptive information, e.g., addresses, voter's ID No., etc., omitted for brevity.

[59] TSN (Romeo Miat), February 21, 1991, p. 5 [Note: Read into the record by Romeo Miat. The letter was not, however, marked as
an Exhibit.].

[60] When the nature of the testimonies of Ceferino Miat [TSN, January 25, 1990, pp. 4-5] and Pedro Miranda [TSN, April 5, 1990, p.
18] was offered, i.e., that they were privy to the oral partion of the Paco property between Moises Miat and his two sons and,
subsequently, between Romeo and Alexander, no objection was offered by opposing counsel. ["Art. 1405 (New Civil Code). Contracts
infringing the Statute of Frauds, referred to in No. 2 of Article 1403, are ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of oral

Page 7 of 8
evidence to prove the same, or by the acceptance of benefits under them."]

[61] 322 SCRA 481, 490-491 (2000).

[62] Republic vs. De Guzman, 326 SCRA 267 (2000).

[63] Rollo, pp. 39-40 [Decision, CA-G.R. CV No. 43053, November 29, 1999, pp. 15-16].

Page 8 of 8