Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Averia v. Averia

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Brava
    592 views2 pages
    Gregorio Averia and Sylvanna Vergara represented Teresa Averia in petitioning the Supreme Court to review a Court of Appeals decision regarding a property dispute with Teresa's siblings. The Court of Appeals had reversed a trial court decision that found Gregorio was entitled to half the property based on an alleged verbal sale from their mother Macaria before she died. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred because parol evidence of the verbal sale was admitted without objection, ratifying the contract. Additionally, the statute of frauds does not apply because the contracts were fully performed through payment and Gregorio's continued occupation of the property. The Supreme Court found the trial court's decision in favor of Gregorio

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Gregorio Averia and Sylvanna Vergara represented Teresa Averia in petitioning the Supreme Court to review a Court of Appeals decision regarding a property dispute with Teresa's siblings. The Court of Appeals had reversed a trial court decision that found Gregorio was entitled to half the property based on an alleged verbal sale from their mother Macaria before she died. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred because parol evidence of the verbal sale was admitted without objection, ratifying the contract. Additionally, the statute of frauds does not apply because the contracts were fully performed through payment and Gregorio's continued occupation of the property. The Supreme Court found the trial court's decision in favor of Gregorio

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    592 views2 pages

    Averia v. Averia

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Brava
    Gregorio Averia and Sylvanna Vergara represented Teresa Averia in petitioning the Supreme Court to review a Court of Appeals decision regarding a property dispute with Teresa's siblings. The Court of Appeals had reversed a trial court decision that found Gregorio was entitled to half the property based on an alleged verbal sale from their mother Macaria before she died. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred because parol evidence of the verbal sale was admitted without objection, ratifying the contract. Additionally, the statute of frauds does not apply because the contracts were fully performed through payment and Gregorio's continued occupation of the property. The Supreme Court found the trial court's decision in favor of Gregorio

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    141877 August 13, 2004


    Gregorio F. Averia and Sylvanna A. Vergara, representing the Absentee Heir Teresa
    Averia, petitioners
    vs.
    Domingo Averia, Angel Averia, Felipe Averia, and The Heirs of Felimon F.
    Averia, respondents

    Ponente: Associate Justice Carpio-Morales

    FACTS:
    Macaria Francisco and Marcos Averia contracted marriage which bore 6 issues, namely:
    Gregorio, Teresa, Domingo, Angel, Felipe and Felimon. Macaria was widowed and she contracted
    a second marriage with Roberto Romero which bore no issue. Romero died leaving three adjoining
    residential lots. In a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Summary Settlement of the Estate of
    Romero, the house and lot containing 150sq.m. at Extremadura Street, Sampaloc was apportioned
    to Macaria. Transfer Certificate of Title covering the Extremadura property was accordingly issued
    in the name of Macaria. Alleging that fraud was employed by her co-heirs in the partition of the
    estate of Romero, Macaria filed an action for annulment of title and damages before the Court of
    First Instance of Manila against her co-heirs Domingo Viray, et al. The decision of the Court of
    Appeals adjudged Macaria as entitled to an additional 30sq.m. of the estate. Macaria's son Gregorio
    and his family and daughter Teresa's family lived with her at Extremadura until her death in 1983.
    Close to six years after Macaria's demise her children Domingo, et.al. filed before the RTC-Manila
    a complaint against their brother Gregorio and niece Sylvanna Vergara "representing her absentee
    mother" Teresa Averia, for judicial partition of the Extremadura property. The defendants in their
    Answer to the Complaint, countered that the plaintiffs are not co-owners of the Extremadura
    property as ½ thereof is solely owned by Gregorio which was verbally sold by Macaria before she
    died to the spouses Gregorio and Agripina and 1/6 of the other half representing Domingo’s share
    thereof had already been sold and assigned by Domingo to Gregorio and his wife who died in
    1987. RTC rendered a decision in favor of Gregorio Averia. CA reversed the trial court decision.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not CA erred in finding that the alleged conveyances by Macaria and Domingo to
    Gregorio is unenforceable.

    RULING:

    YES. Contrary then to the finding of the CA, the admission of parol evidence upon which
    the trial court anchored its decision in favor of respondents is not irregular and is not foreclosed
    by Article 1405. Following Article 1405 of the Civil Code, the contracts which infringed the
    Statute of Frauds were ratified by the failure to object to the presentation of parol evidence, hence,
    enforceable. Indeed, except for the testimony of petitioner Gregorio bearing on the verbal sale to
    him by Macaria of the property, the testimonies of petitioners' witnesses Sylvanna Vergara
    Clutario and Flora Lazaro Rivera bearing on the same matter were not objected to by respondents.
    In any event, the Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts and not to contracts which
    are either partially or totally performed. However it is not enough for a party to allege partial
    performance in order to render the Statute of Frauds inapplicable; such partial performance must
    be duly proved. The partial performance may be proved by either documentary or oral evidence.
    In the case at bar, the testimony of Sylvana Vergara Clutario, daughter of Teresa, in fact was more
    than sufficient to prove the conveyance of half of the subject property by Macaria to Gregorio. As
    to the sale of Domingo's 1/6 share to Gregorio, petitioners were able to establish said transaction
    by parol evidence, consisting of the testimonies of Gregorio Averia, Jr., Veronica Averia and
    Felimon Dagondon the presentation of which was, it bears repeating, not objected to.

    COMMENT:

    The ruling of the Supreme Court is justified. Under Article 1405, there are two ways of
    ratification of contracts infringing the Statutes of Fraud: (1) failure to object to the presentation of
    oral evidence; (2) acceptance of benefits under them. In the case at bar, the testimonies of
    petitioners' witnesses Sylvanna Vergara Clutario and Flora Lazaro Rivera were not objected to by
    respondents. Moreover, there was total performance of the contracts because full payment of the
    objects thereof have already been made and the vendee Gregorio have, even after Macaria's death,
    continued to occupy the property until and after the filing in 1989 of the complaint subject of the
    case at bar as in fact he is still occupying it, hence, Statute of Fraud cannot be applied in this case
    in accordance to Article 1403 of the Civil Code.

    You might also like