When it comes to the sale of real property, lawyers almost instinctively give the same advice: put it in writing. Yet a recurring question persists—can land be sold through a mere verbal agreement? The short answer is yes. But while an unwritten sale of real property may be valid, it carries serious legal implications. In transactions involving land, matters are rarely that straightforward.
In Ocampo, et al. v. Batara-Sapad, et al. G.R. No. 256343, April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that a sale of land made through a purely verbal agreement may still be valid and binding, provided it has been totally or partially executed. The case offers a timely reminder that form and enforceability are not always synonymous in contract law.
The controversy arose from a parcel of land originally owned by a registered owner who later died. His heirs, then minors, were unaware of the existence of the property until many years later, when the government demanded payment of real property tax arrears. They also discovered that the land had long been occupied by a relative, who claimed ownership by virtue of a prior verbal sale.
The occupant asserted that he had purchased the property decades earlier through an unwritten agreement coursed through a close family member of the owner. He relied on his long possession of the land, the alleged delivery of the owner’s title, and decades of tax payments. To prove the sale, he presented testimonial evidence, conceding that no written instrument existed because the relevant parties had already passed away. The heirs countered that the alleged sale was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, and that testimonial evidence should therefore be excluded.
The lower courts uniformly ruled in favor of the heirs, holding that as successors of the registered owner, they had the better right of possession. They disregarded the claimed sale on the ground that it was undocumented, unregistered, and supported only by parol evidence.
The Supreme Court reversed.
The Court reiterated that Articles 1358 and 1403(2)(e) of the Civil Code require contracts involving the sale of real property to be in writing for purposes of enforceability, not validity. An unwritten contract of sale is not void; it merely cannot be enforced by action unless properly evidenced. Crucially, the Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts. It does not cover contracts that have been totally or partially performed.
Because the buyer had taken possession of the land and introduced improvements thereon, the Court held that the verbal sale had already been executed. In such cases, parol evidence is admissible to prove the existence and terms of the agreement, even if the property is registered in another’s name. The Court stressed that the prohibition under Article 1403(2) does not bar testimonial evidence when the contract is invoked not to compel performance, but to establish ownership or possession arising from an executed sale.
The Court also observed that while testimonial evidence is naturally self-serving, it should not be automatically discounted, especially when weighed against the heirs’ admitted lack of knowledge about the property and their acknowledgment of the buyer’s long possession.
That said, the Court clarified that payments made to a person without authority to sell—despite acting as a de facto guardian—were legally ineffective, underscoring that capacity and authority remain indispensable elements of a valid conveyance.
