Paredes v Espino Date: March 13, 1968 Ponente: Reyes, JBL Facts: Paredes filed an action to compel (i.e.

. specific performance and damages) Espino to execute a deed of sale and to pay damages. The complaint alleged that Espino had entered into the sale to Paredes of Lot. 67 of the Puerto Princesa Cadastre at P4.00 a square meter. According to Paredes, said 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 Espino at Puerto Prinsesa. However, upon Espinos arrival, he refused and to execute the deed of sale. As a result, Paredes lost expected profits from a resale of the property. o Exhibit A: Letter from Espino accepting Paredes offer re: purchase price of P4.00 a square meter o Exhbit B: Telegram from Espino advising Paredes of his arrival by boat Espino filed a MD on the ground that the complaint stated no cause of action and was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. CFI: Dismissed complaint there being no written contract (CC 1403). Issue: WON enforcement pleaded in the complaint is barred by the Statute of Frauds; therefore, unenforceable Held: No. Ratio: Article 1403 (2) unless the same, or some note of memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents. Exhibits A and B constitute an adequate memorandum of the transaction. All essential terms of the contract are present; hence, they satisfy the requirements of the Statue of Frauds o Signed by Espino o Refered to property sold as Lot. 67 covered by TCT No. 62 o Stipulated its area as 1826 square meters o Purchase price payable in cash Berg v Magdalena Estate: a sufficient memorandum may be contained in two or more documents. Shaffer v Palma: whether the agreement is in writing or not, is a question of evidence; and the authenticity of the writing need not be established until the trial is held. Paredes having alleged that the contract is backed by letter and telegram, and the same being a sufficient memorandum, his cause of action is thereby established, especially since Espino has not denied the letters in question. At any rate, if the Court below entertained any doubts about the existence of the written memorandum, it should have called for a preliminary hearing on that point, and not dismissed the complaint. Dispositive: Appealed order is set aside and the case remanded to the Court of origin for trial and decision.