G.R. No.

58057 June 30, 1993

HEIRS OF MARIANO LAGUTAN, Namely: FRANCISCA ICAO, AMADOR LAGUTAN,

FEDERICO LAGUTAN, RICARDO LAGUTAN, GODOFREDO LAGUTAN, NEMIA
LAGUTAN, SALVADOR LAGUTAN, ALBERTO LAGUTAN, and HERNANDITA
LAGUTAN, petitioners,
vs.
SEVERINA ICAO, TERESITA ICAO, IGNACIA ICAO, MARGARITA ICAO MERCURIAL
SAGARIO and MR. MAGALLON, respondents.

106. HEIRS OF LAGUTAN VS. ICAO

FACTS:

1… On May 23, 1972, herein petitioners, filed a Complaint against respondents for
"Specific Performance and/or Payment of Improvements" in regard to two parcels of
land, located Dapitan City.

2. Alleged as follows on parcel 1:

That Felix Icao and spouses petitioners entered into a contract wherein it was
agreed that spouses petitioner would cultivate the Lot, above-described on condition
that the spouses would cultivate and plant coconuts on the land, and the improvements
would be divided equally into two: one-half (1/2) would go to the spouses and the other
one-half (1/2) would go to Felix Icao;

3. That as agreed, spouses petitioners with the help of their children, cultivated and
improved Parcel I, and planted thereon coconuts which are now fruit-bearing.

4. On parcel 2 alleging thus:

That plaintiff Amador Lagutan (petitioners) entered into contract to the effect that
PARCEL II would be cultivated and improved and to plant thereon coconuts on
condition that as consideration thereof, Amador Lagutan would be given another parcel
of land commensurate to the labor or services rendered as mentioned above;

5. That by virtue of and pursuant to the contract above-mentioned, Amador Lagutan

cultivated and improved Parcel II and planted thereon 300 coconut trees by himself and
thru hired laborers, which coconuts are now fruit bearing.

6. Respondents filed their Answer on May 20, 1977 which, aside from reiterating
previous defenses of absence of cause of action, prescription, and non-compliance with
the Statute of Frauds, sought to introduce additional defenses of laches and estoppel
aside from averring that both lots were the capital and paraphernal property of Felix
Icao and Francisca Jaralve

LEGAL ISSUE:

Whether or not the "un-dated" and "unwritten" agreement, granting that it did exist is,
unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds;

RULING:

1… We rule against the dismissal.

2. The petitioners admit the agreement or contract was not in writing:

3. While it is true that the agreement was not made in writing, the fact remains that
the agreement has already been performed by the petitioners herein by planting
coconuts and other improvements on the land in question. Which means there is
already partial performance. Therefore, the contract is not any more an executory but
already executed. Hence, enforceable.
4. Similarly, petitioners cannot state with definiteness as to the date the alleged
agreement or contract was entered into,

5. While it is true that the complaint does not state when the agreement was
entered into and/or made between the petitioners and the respondents by the absence
of the date is not the determining factor as to the basis of petitioners cause of action.

6. It is . . . settled that petitioners admit that the alleged agreement was not in
writing, and they cannot tell the date when same agreement was made.

7. As to PARCEL I, the alleged agreement was recited in par. X of the amended

complaint the parties were Felix Icao (landowner), and the spouses Mariano Lagutan
and Francisca Icao (the tillers).

8. As to PARCEL II, another agreement was stated in the same amended complaint
in its par. XX the parties were plaintiff Amador Lagutan (the tiller) on the one hand, and
the defendant "and/or" their predecessor-in-interest on the other hand, (as the
landowners).

9. It is also unfortunate that the trial court had to elicit an admission from petitioners'
counsel on the absence of a written agreement because the Statute of Frauds is not
applicable here.

10. What is at issue is respondents' alleged failure to pay ½ of the improvements on

Parcels I and II to petitioners. Or, alternatively, the corresponding delivery of ½ of said
Parcels I and II, respectively.

11. This situation is not covered by the Statute of Frauds, specifically, No. 2 of Article
1403 of the new Civil Code since the agreement had partially been executed which
removes the case from the coverage of the Statute of Frauds.