ARTICLE 1408

HEIRS OF CECILIO (also known as BASILIO) CLAUDEL, ET AL. vs. HON. COURT
OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF MACARIO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 85240 July 12, 1991
SARMIENTO, J.
FACTS:
As early as December 28, 1922, Basilio also known as "Cecilio" Claudel, acquired from
the Bureau of Lands, Lot No. 1230 of the Muntinlupa Estate Subdivision, located in the
poblacion of Muntinlupa, Rizal, with an area of 10,107 square meters; he secured
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 7471 issued by the Registry of Deeds for the
Province of Rizal in 1923; he also declared the lot in his name, the latest Tax
Declaration being No. 5795. He dutifully paid the real estate taxes thereon until his
death in 1937. Thereafter, his widow "Basilia" and later, her son Jose, one of the herein
petitioners, paid the taxes.
The same piece of land purchased by Cecilio would, however, become the subject of
protracted litigation thirty-nine years after his death.
Two branches of Cecilio's family contested the ownership over the land-on one hand the
children of Cecilio, namely, Modesto, Loreta, Jose, Benjamin, Pacita, Carmelita,
Roberto, Mario, Leonardo, Nenita, Arsenia Villalon, and Felisa Claudel, and their
children and descendants, now the herein petitioners (hereinafter referred to as HEIRS
OF CECILIO), and on the other, the brother and sisters of Cecilio, namely, Macario,
Esperidiona, Raymunda, and Celestina and their children and descendants, now the
herein private respondents (hereinafter referred to as SIBLINGS OF CECILIO). In 1972,
the HEIRS OF CECILIO partitioned this lot among themselves and obtained the
corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title on their shares.
ISSUE:
Whether a third party can enforce a contract.
RULING:
No. in the event that a third party, as in this case, disputes the ownership of the
property, the person against whom that claim is brought can not present any proof of
such sale and hence has no means to enforce the contract. Thus the Statute of Frauds
was precisely devised to protect the parties in a contract of sale of real property so that
no such contract is enforceable unless certain requisites, for purposes of proof, are met.
ARTICLE 1396
IN RE: PETITION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF TITLE IN THE VENDEES OF A HOUSE
AND THE RIGHTS TO A LOT. MARIA BAUTISTA VDA. DE REYES, ET AL.,
RODOLFO LANUZA vs. MARTIN DE LEON
G.R. No. L-22331  June 6, 1967
REGALA, J.
FACTS:
Rodolfo Lanuza and his wife Belen were the owners of a two-story house built on a lot
of the Maria Guizon Subdivision in Tondo, Manila, which the spouses leased from the
Consolidated Asiatic Co. On January 12, 1961, Lanuza executed a document entitled
"Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase" whereby he conveyed to Maria Bautista Vda.
de Reyes and Aurelia R. Navarro the house, together with the leasehold rights to the lot,
a television set and a refrigerator in consideration of the sum of P3,000. 
As the Lanuzas failed to pay their obligation, De Leon filed in the sheriff's office on
October 5, 1962 a petition for the extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgage. On the
other hand, Reyes and Navarro followed suit by filing in the Court of First Instance of
Manila a petition for the consolidation of ownership of the house on the ground that the
period of redemption expired on July 12, 1961 without the vendees exercising their right
of repurchase. The petition for consolidation of ownership was filed on October 19. On
October 23, the house was sold to De Leon as the only bidder at the sheriffs sale. De
Leon immediately took possession of the house, secured a discharge of the mortgage
on the house in favor of a rural bank by paying P2,000 and, on October 29, intervened
in court and asked for the dismissal of the petition filed by Reyes and Navarro on the
ground that the unrecorded pacto de retro sale could not affect his rights as a third
party.
ISSUE:
Whether the contract was ratified.
RULING:
Yes. It is true that the original deed of sale with pacto de retro, dated January 12, 1961,
was not signed by Belen Geronimo-Lanuza, wife of the vendor a retro, Rodolfo Lanuza,
at the time of its execution. It appears, however, that on the occasion of the extension of
the period for repurchase to July 12, 1961, Belen Geronimo-Lanuza signed giving her
approval and conformity. This act, in effect, constitutes ratification or confirmation of the
contract by Belen Geronimo-Lanuza, which ratification validated the act of Rodolfo
Lanuza from the moment of the execution of the said contract. In short, such ratification
had the effect of purging the contract of any defect which it might have had from the
moment of its execution.