FILEMON PACIA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO SANTOS AND JOSE CUIZON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

OSTRAND, J.:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga,
ordering the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the estate of the
deceased Tomas Pacia the sum of P19,000, with legal interest on the sum of
P6,500 from the first of July, 1921, and on the sum of P12,500 from the first of
January, 1922. From this judgment the defendants Pedro Santos and Jose Cuizon
appeal and make four assignments of error, all of which relate to questions of
fact.

The plaintiff is the administrator of the estate mentioned and in his
complaint alleges that by public document executed on September 29, 1920, Tomas
Pacia sold to the defendants Pedro Santos, Pablo Panganiban and Jose Cuizon 43
hectares of land for the sum of P25,000 payable in three installments; the first
installment of P4,000 to be paid at the time of the execution of the document;
the second installment of P8,500 and the third of P12,500 to be paid on July 1,
1921, and January 1, 1922, respectively; that the said defendants had paid only
the first installment and the sunuof P2,000 on the second installment but had
failed to pay the balance. The plaintiff therefore prayed judgment for the sum
of P19,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and for the
further sum of P17,000 as damages and attorneys’ fees.

The defendant Pedro Santos in his answer admits that the contract was
executed as alleged in the complaint, but sets up as a special defense that
there was an agreement among the defendants to the effect that Pablo Panganiban
and Jose Cuizon were to pay all of the first and second installments of the
purchase price and that, Pedro Santos., had already paid P7,082.5 for
improvements made on the land; that, furthermore, the defendants did not obtain
their possession of the land from the vendor Tomas Pacia but from Mateo Legaspi,
Fortunato Carreon and Jose Termulo, who held a lease on the land and who
assigned said lease to the defendant Pedro Santos and certain other persons who
are not parties in the present case.

The defendants Pablo Panganiban and Jose Cuizon in their answer admit that
the document of September 29, 1920, was executed as alleged in the complaint and
that of the purchase price stated in the document only P6,000 has been paid.

The defendant Cuizon alleges as a special defense that he never gave his
consent to the contract evidenced by the document mentioned and that it was made
without his knowledge.

The defendant Pablo Panganiban sets up as a special defense that at the time
of entering into the contract the vendor Tomas Pacia maliciously concealed from
him the fact that the land in question was leased to other persons for the term
of ten years and that if this fact had been disclosed to him he would not have
entered into the contract. It appears from the evidence that the document in
question (Exhibit A) was prepared by the notary public before whom it was
acknowledged, with the assistance of the defendant Santos. Through an oversight
the document was signed only by the vendor Tomas Pacia and was not signed by the
purchasers, the herein defendants; but it appears from the testimony of the
notary public that all of the defendants were present when the document was
executed and that they gave their consent to all of the provisions of the
contract. It further appears that the defendants made partial payments on the
purchase price and that they took possession of the land.

In regard to the lease referred to in the special defenses of Santos and
Panganiban, it appears that several years previous to the sale Tomas Pacia
leased the latid to Mateo Legaspi, Fortunato Carreon and Jose Termulo, but that
on the 7th of August, 1920, the defendant Santos obtained an assignment of the
lease and succeeded to the rights of the lessees. There also appears to have
been an understanding among the defendants to the effect that all of them were
to participate in the rights so acquired, and the evidence is conclusive that
they entered into possession of the land and have not been disturbed in such
possession since the execution of the deed in their favor by Tomas Pacia. It is
therefore clear that, the special defense of Santos and Panganiban to the effect
that they did not obtain their possession of the land through that deed is of no
avail. They were aware of all the circumstances before entering into the
agreement with Pacia and, as already stated, their possession since then has
been quiet and undisturbed.

Neither is there any merit in Santos’ other special defense that he had an
agreement with his codefendants that he would be relieved from his share of the
payments of the purchase price in consideration of his paying for the
improvements to be made on the land. Pacia was not a party to that agreement and
was not bound thereby. Moreover, Exhibit B, a letter written by Santos to
Panganiban and in which he asks the latter to furnish the sum of P4,000 to be
used for repairs and improvements of the fish-pond tends to cast doubt on the
existence of the agreement mentioned.

The defendant Cuizon’s special defense that he was not present at the
execution of the deed and did not give his consent thereto is not sustained by
the evidence. Even assuming, for the sake of the argument, that the notary
public who prepared the document was mistaken in his statement that Cuizon was
present and agreed to its terms, the letter of July 28, 1921, written by Cuizon
to the plaintiffs’ lawyer Sofronio Hernandez (Exhibit C) shows sufficiently that
‘he was a party to the agreement and considered himself bound thereby.

The only question remaining for consideration is whether there was a
sufficient part performance of the contract of sale to take the agreement for
the payment of the purchase price out of the statute of frauds. As to this there
can be no doubt. The vendor fully performed his part of the contract and it is
well settled that the statute is no bar to an action for the price of land
actually conveyed where the deed has been accepted. (27 C. J. and numerous
authorities there cited.)

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the
appellants. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Johns, and
Romualdez, JJ., concur.