Paredes v Espino.pdf

3/11/2015 G.R.No.L23351,Paredesv.Espino,22SCRA1000PhilippineLaw.info

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/grl23351paredesvespino.html 1/5

Search

PhilippineLaw.infoThe most comprehensive free-access online database of Philippine law materials.

PhilippineLaw.info Jurisprudence 1968 March

PhilippineLaw.info Jurisprudence SCRA Vol. 22

G.R. No. L-23351, Paredes v.Espino, 22 SCRA 1000

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

March 13, 1968

G.R. No. L-23351CIRILO PAREDES, plaintiff-appellant, vs.JOSE L. ESPINO, defendant-appellee.

Simeon Capule for plaintiff-appellant. Iigo R. Pea for defendant-appellee.

REYES, J.B.L., Actg. C.J.:

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Palawanin its Civil Case No. 453, granting a motion to dismiss thecomplaint.

TradeBinaryOptionsJoin1,000,000+tradersStartTradingfromonly$1!

Constitutions Laws Judiciary Specials Legal Help Law Students Forum

About Us Privacy Policy

Jordan BlackGrape V 5sJordan BlackPhp12,500.00

Shop now!

FindusonFacebook

PhilippineLaw.info

8,829peoplelikePhilippineLaw.info.

Facebooksocialplugin

Like



Appellant Cirilo Parades had filed an action to compeldefendant-appellee Jose L. Espino to execute a deed of sale andto pay damages. The complaint alleged that the defendant"had entered into the sale" to plaintiff of Lot No. 67 of thePuerto Princesa Cadastre at P4.00 a square meter; that the dealhad been "closed by letter and telegram" but the actualexecution of the deed of sale and payment of the price weredeferred to the arrival of defendant at Puerto Princesa; thatdefendant upon arrival had refused to execute the deed of salealtho plaintiff was able and willing to pay the price, andcontinued to refuse despite written demands of plaintiff; thatas a result, plaintiff had lost expected profits from a resale ofthe property, and caused plaintiff mental anguish andsuffering, for which reason the complaint prayed for specificperformance and damages.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground that thecomplaint stated no cause of action, and that the plaintiff'sclaim upon which the action was founded was unenforceableunder the Statute of Frauds.

Plaintiff opposed in writing the motion to dismiss and annexedto his opposition a copy of a letter purportedly signed bydefendant (Annex "A"), wherein it was stated (Record onAppeal, pp. 19-20)

106 GonzagaSt. Tuguegarao,Cagayan May18,1964 Mr.CiriloParedes Pto.Princesa,Palawan

Dear Mr. Paredes:

So far I received two letters from you, one dated April 17and the other April 29, both 1964. In reply thereto, pleasebe informed that after consulting with my wife, we bothdecided to accept your last offer of Four (P4.00) pesos persquare meter of the lot which contains 1826 square metersand on cash basis.

In order that we can facilitate the transaction of the sale inquestion, we (Mrs. Espino and I), are going there (Puerto



Princess, Pal.) to be there during the last week of themonth, May. I will send you a telegram, as per yourrequest, when I will reach Manila before taking the boatfor Pto. Princess. As it is now, there is no schedule yet ofthe boats plying between Manila and Pto. Princess for nextweek.

Plaintiff also appended as Annex "A-1", a telegram apparentlyfrom defendant advising plaintiff of his arrival by boat aboutthe last week of May 1964 (Annex "A-1" Record on Appeal, p.21), as well as a previous letter of defendant (Appendix B,Record on Appeal, p. 35) referring to the lot as the one coveredby Certificate of Title No. 62.

These allegations and documents notwithstanding, the Courtbelow dismissed the complaint on the ground that there beingno written contract, under Article 1403 of the Civil Code of thePhilippines

Although the contract is valid in itself, the same can not beenforced by virtue of the Statute of Frauds. (Record onAppeal, p. 37).

Plaintiff duly appealed to this Court.

The sole issue here is whether enforcement of the contractpleaded in the complaint is barred by the Statute of Frauds;and the Court a quo plainly erred in holding that it wasunenforceable.

The Statute of Frauds, embodied in Article 1403 of the CivilCode of the Philippines, does not require that the contractitself be in writing. The plain text of Article 1403, paragraph(2) is clear that a written note or memorandum, embodyingthe essentials of the contract and signed by the party charged,or his agent, suffices to make the verbal agreementenforceable, taking it out of the operation of the statute.

Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable,unless they are ratified:

(1) . .



(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds asset forth in this number. In the following cases anagreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable byaction, unless the same, or some note or memorandumthereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the partycharged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of theagreement cannot be received without the writing, or asecondary evidence of its contents:

x x x x x x x x x

(e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer periodthan one year, or for the sale of real property or of aninterest therein.

x x x x x x x x x

In the case at bar, the complaint in its paragraph 3 pleads thatthe deal had been closed by letter and telegram" (Record onAppeal, p. 2), and the letter referred to was evidently the onecopy of which was appended as Exhibit A to plaintiff'sopposition to the motion dismiss. This letter, transcribedabove in part, together with that one marked as Appendix B,constitute an adequate memorandum of the transaction. Theyare signed by the defendant-appellee; refer to the propertysold as a lot in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, covered, by TCT No.62; give its area as 1826 square meters and the purchase priceof four (P4.00) pesos per square meter payable in cash. Wehave in them therefore, all the essential terms of the contract,and they satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. Wehave ruled in Berg vs. Magdalena Estate, Inc., 92 Phil. 110, 115,that a sufficient memorandum may be contained in two ormore documents.

Defendant-appellee argues that the authenticity of the lettershas not been established. That is not necessary for the purposeof showing prima facie that the contract is enforceable. For asruled by us in Shaffer vs. Palma, L-24115, March 1, 1968, whetherthe agreement is in writing or not, is a question of evidence;and the authenticity of the writing need not be establisheduntil the trial is held. The plaintiff having alleged that thecontract is backed by letter and telegram, and the same beinga sufficient memorandum, his cause of action is thereby



established, especially since the defendant has not denied theletters in question. At any rate, if the Court below entertainedany doubts about the existence of the written memorandum, itshould have called for a preliminary hearing on that point, andnot dismissed the complaint.

WHEREFORE, the appealed order is hereby set aside, and thecase remanded to the Court of origin for trial and decision.Costs against defendant-appellee Jose L. Espino. So ordered.

Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angelesand Fernando, JJ., concur.

Copyright 2007-2014 PhilippineLaw.infoTheme by Theme Horse

Documents

Paredes v Espino.pdf