A land sale doesn’t always need a written contract to be valid — at least not when it has already been carried out, the Supreme Court has ruled.
In a decision dated 2 April 2025 and uploaded on 27 June, the high tribunal’s Third Division upheld the validity of an unwritten agreement between Marcos Batara and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo over a parcel of land. The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, emphasized that even in the absence of a written contract, a verbal sale may be legally binding if it has been partially or fully executed.
The Court said that the sale is enforceable because Ocampo took possession of the land, made improvements on it, and was even given the title by Batara himself after the initial payment.
Records showed the property was registered under Batara’s name. After his death in 1974, his children, Noblesa and Ernesto, were unaware of the land’s existence until 2007, when they received a notice about unpaid real estate taxes and discovered that their cousin Ocampo was living on the property.
Claiming they were the rightful heirs, the siblings filed a case to reclaim the land.
Ocampo, however, asserted that he bought the land from Batara when the latter was still alive, and after Batara’s death, continued paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother and Noblesa’s guardian. Ocampo also presented the land title as proof, saying Batara handed it to him after receiving the first payment.
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals previously ruled in favor of the heirs, stating that since the land was registered in their father’s name, they had a stronger legal claim. The lower courts also concluded that Ocampo’s claims were unsupported by sufficient proof other than his verbal testimony.
But the Supreme Court reversed these rulings, citing Article 1403 of the Civil Code, which requires a written contract for the sale of land to be enforceable in court. The Court clarified, however, that the absence of a written agreement does not automatically void the transaction if there is proof of partial or full execution.
“In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding,” the decision said, adding that testimonies from witnesses can be admitted to establish the validity of the sale.
The Court considered Ocampo’s act of taking possession of the land, improving it, and paying real property taxes as strong indicators that a valid sale had occurred.
However, the Court said that Ocampo’s payments to Marcelo were ineffective because Marcelo was not authorized to accept payments on behalf of Batara’s heirs.
While it ruled that the verbal agreement between Batara and Ocampo is valid, the Supreme Court ordered Ocampo to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price to Noblesa and Ernesto, with interest.
The decision was concurred in by Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Henri Paul B. Inting, and Japar B. Dimaampao. Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh was on leave. The decision was attested by AJ Caguioa, chairman of the Third Division, and certified by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.