PAREDES v ESPINO

FACTS:
Cirilio Paredes alleged that Jose Espino "had entered into the sale" to him of
Lot No. 67 of the Puerto Princesa Cadastre at P4.00 a square meter; that the deal had been
"closed by letter and telegram" but the actual execution of the deed of sale and payment of
the price were deferred to the arrival of defendant at Puerto Princesa; that defendant upon
arrival had refused to execute the deed of sale although plaintiff was able and willing to pay
the price.
The Court below dismissed the complaint on the ground that there being no written contract,
under Article 1403 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
Although the contract is valid in itself, the same cannot be enforced by virtue of the Statute
of Frauds.
ISSUE: W/N the enforcement of the contract pleaded in the complaint is barred by the
Statute of Frauds
HELD: The Statute of Frauds, embodied in Article 1403 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
dos not require that the contract itself be in writing. The plain text of Article 1403, paragraph
(2) is clear that a written note or memorandum, embodying the essentials of the contract
and signed by the party charged, or his agent, suffices to make the verbal agreement
enforceable, taking it out of the operation of the statute.
The said letters constitute an adequate memorandum of the transaction. They are signed by
the defendant-appellee; refer to the property sold as a lot in Puerto Princesa, Palawan,
covered, by TCT No. 62; give its area as 1826 square meters and the purchase price of four
(P4.00) pesos per square meter payable in cash. We have in them therefore, all the essential
terms of the contract, and they satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds
The appealed order is hereby set aside, and the case remanded to the Court of origin for
trial and decision.