Executed oral sale of land is valid and beyond the ambit of the Statute of Frauds

6 Sep 2026 • 12:07 AM MYT
The Manila Times
The Manila Times

One of the longest-running English broadsheets in the Philippines

Executed oral sale of land is valid and beyond the ambit of the Statute of Frauds

Dear PAO,

My father bought the land of X. He paid the full purchase price, so X surrendered the title and possession of the land to him. However, X died before signing a deed of absolute sale. The heirs of X refuse to recognize the oral sale between our parents and claims that the agreement is invalid since the same is not in writing and in a public document. They added that the contract cannot be enforced in court. Is the agreement between my father and X unenforceable?

Tricvoy

Dear Tricvoy,

Generally speaking, contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into. This is in consonance with Article 1356 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines which provides that:

“Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. However, when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. In such cases, the right of the parties stated in the following article cannot be exercised.”

A contract is valid as long as the requisites under Article 1318 of the same law are present, to wit: “(1) Consent of the contracting parties; (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3) Cause of the obligation which is established.”

However, please note that certain contracts, like the sale of land, should comply with Article 1403 (2) (e), Id., known as the Statute of Frauds, which states that:

“The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified: xxx (2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following cases, an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents:

“xxx (e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein.”

Sale of real property, thus, needs to be in writing to be enforceable. Nonetheless, the Statute of Fraud is applicable only to executory contracts. This finds support in the case of Ocampo and Garcia-Ocampo vs. Batara-Sapad and Batara, GR 256343, April 2, 2025, where the Supreme Court, through Justice Samuel Gaerlan stated that:

“Articles 1358 and 1403(2)(e) of the Civil Code ordain inter alia that contracts for the sale of real property must be made in a public document and subscribed by the party charged or his agent; otherwise they cannot be enforced by action, and evidence thereof ‘cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents.’ This requirement, however, does not affect the validity of such contracts, because the Civil Code ‘does not require accomplishment of acts or contracts in a public instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy so that after the existence of the act or contract has been admitted, the party bound may be compelled to execute the document.’

“Furthermore, the scope of Article 1403(2) is limited to the enforcement of an unwritten contract. It does not apply to contracts that have been partially or totally implemented; and ‘[t]aking possession of the property and making improvements thereon serve as indicators that an oral sale of a piece of land had already been executed.’ Thus, buyers in possession may invoke an unwritten contract of sale as the legal basis of their possession.”

Because your father already paid the full price and took possession of the land, the oral sale of land between him and X is no longer covered by the Statue of Frauds. Thus, the oral contract between your father and X is considered valid as long as all the requisites of a contract mentioned in Article 1318 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines are present. Clearly, the claim of X’s heirs that the oral sale of land is invalid and unenforceable have no legal basis in your father’s case.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.

Newswav Malaysia Best News App

Newswav is an online content aggregator and obtains its content from different online sources. The content in the app do not belong to Newswav nor do they reflect the opinions of Newswav and its staff. Your use of this app indicates your understanding and acceptance of this information.

Newswav Sdn. Bhd. (201701008480 (1222645-M)) 2026 All Rights Reserved