Professional Documents
Culture Documents
agreement called the Associated Dealers Sales Contract which enables the
former to sell the latters petroleum products through the pumps in the leased
property, which on a later date the parties mutually terminated. Subsequently,
plaintiff filed an action to rescind the contract on the ground that defendant
company failed to comply with the conditions of the contract for the reason that it
lacks consideration and also upon termination of the dealership contract, the lease
contract was likewise terminated because the lease contract did not have sufficient
consideration to stand on, hence it was ordered rescinded.
Is the contract of lease also terminated?
No. Although parties may have the freedom to stipulate on every contract, they
may not therefore establish clauses or agreements and at the same time determine
their legal effect. When they mutually terminated the dealership contract, there
was nothing to show that the lease contract was intended to be also terminated.
The real reason why the Dionisios wants to rescind the contract is because their
monthly profit in the lease is not consummate to their investment, they feel that
the rentals should be increased. However, it is not upon the court to decide, it is
left upon the goodwill of the parties. As it was held in Askay vs. Cosalan The
fact that the bargain was a hard one or that the result s thereof are not as they
were expected to be is not sufficient ground for cancellation of the contract
entered into when each of the parties was in a position to form an independent
judgment.
Art. 1306 Freedom of contracts; it must not be immoral.
De Los Reyes vs. Alojado
It was agreed that the defendant who was indebted to the petitioners, cannot leave
the house and should remain a servant of the latter until the debt has been fully
paid.
Truly, there was an obligation for Alojado to pay the De Los Reyes. However, the
reason alleged by the plaintiff as bases for the loan is untenable to wit, that the
defendant was obliged to render remuneration whatever and to remain therein so
long as she had not paid her debt, inasmuch as this condition is contrary to law
and morality.
Ibarra vs. Aveyro
It is against public morals to impose on the part of the debtor to pay 5.00 per day
as penalty in case of non-payment. (Consider that this case is decided a long long
long time ago and 5 pesos is still a large amount then.)
Art. 1306 Freedom of contracts; contrary to public order.
Zulueta vs. Mariano
True, the contract between the parties provided for extra-judicial rescission. This
has legal effect, however, where the other party does not oppose it. Where it is
objected to, a judicial determination the issue is still necessary. Hence, a
Petitioner avers that the lease contract should have been annulled because it lacks
mutuality. The contract reflected The lessee may at any time withdraw from this
agreement. It is claimed that the stipulation is contrary to Art. 1308 which
essentially provides that a contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity
or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them.
Is the stipulation offends the principle of mutuality of contracts?
It was held in Taylor vs. Uy Tieng Pao Art. 1308 of the Civil Code in our opinion
creates no impediment to the insertion in a contract for personal service of a
resolutory condition permitting the cancellation of the contract by one of the
parties. Such a stipulation, as can readily seen, does not make either the validity
or the fulfillment of the contract dependent upon the will of the party to whom is
conceded the privilege of cancellation; for where the contracting parties have
agreed that such option shall exist, the exercise of the option is as much in the
fulfillment of the contract as any other act which may have been the subject of the
agreement. Indeed, the cancellation of a contract in accordance with conditions
agreed upon beforehand is fulfillment. Also in the case of Melancio vs. Dy Tiao
Lay a provision in a lease contract that the lessee, at any time before he erected
any building on the land, might rescind the lease, can hardly be regarded as
violation of the Civil Code.
This case cannot be the same in the case of Singson Encarnacion vs. Baldomar,
where there was a want of mutuality. Since in that case, the lessees argues that
they could occupy the premises as long as they paid the rent. The owner of the
premises cannot discontinue the lease contract, leaving it at the will of the lessees.
In contrast to this case, the right of the lessee to continue the lease or to terminate
it is so circumscribed byt the term of the contract that it cannot be said that the
continuance of the lease depends upon his will.
one of the contracting parties. As it was held in Taylor vs. Uy Tieng Pao, that a
contract giving to one party the right to cancel the same if a resolutory condition
therein agreed upon similar to the one under consideration is not fulfilled, is
valid, for the reason being that when the contract is cancelled, the agreement of
the parties is in reality being fulfilled. Obviously all that said party had to do to
prevent the other from exercising the power to cancel the contract was for him to
comply with his part of the contract.
Art. 1311 Relativity of contracts
Manila Port Services vs. C.A
That main issue in this case is whether or not the Nortwest Insurance & Surety Co.
as subrogee of J.C.A Lumber and General Merchandise herein referred to as
consignee is bound by the provisions of the Management Contract between the
Manila Port Service hereinafter referred to as the arrastre operator - and the
Bureau of Customs. Although admittedly the Consignee herein and the Northwest
Insurance are not parties to the Management Contract, the arrastre operator
maintains that the same is binding upon them, because the consignee had been
notified and had acted with prior knowledge of the provisions of the said contract.
Are they bound?
A contract between two parties can not bind another, not a party thereto, merely
because he is aware of such contract and has acted with knowledge thereof. Even
if the non-parties of the contract benefitted from the same.
Art. 1311 Stipulations POUR AUTRUI
Uy Tam vs. Leonard
There was a bond executed to secure the performance of a contract. Among the
conditions of the bond is shall promptly make all payments to all persons
supplying them labor or materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in
said contract. Defendants as the obligor and City of Manila as the obligee, this
action is brought by the labor and material men.
Can the labor and material men sue upon the bond?
No, it is clear that the only obligee is the City of Manila, and that it was not the
intention of the sureties to be bound in favor of any other party. If it were intended
to protect he materialmen under the bond, the proper language would have been
used for that purpose. A stipulation pour autrui must be clearly expressed. If a
third person claims an enforcible interest in the contract, the question must be
settled by determining whether the contracting parties desired to tender him such
an interest. Did they deliberately insert terms in their agreement with the avowed
purpose of conferring a favor upon such third person? In resolving this question, of
course, the ordinary rules of construction and interpretation of writings must be
observed.
Bonifacio Bros. vs. Mora
Bonifacio Bros. repaired the car of Mora. The car of Mora is insured and under the
insurance policy, Mora is authorized to let the car be repaired as long as the price
for the reparation does not exceed the amount in the insurance policy. Now,
Bonifacio Bros. directly sued the insurance company to pay for their services.
Can the claim of Bonifacio Bros. prosper?
No, it is fundamental that contracts take effect only between the parties thereto,
except in some specific instances provided by law where the contract contains
some stipulation in favor of a third person. This is known as stipulation pour autrui.
In this case, the insurance contract does not contain any words or caluses to
disclose an intent to give any benefit to any repairmen in case of repair of the car
in question. Under this doctrine, a third person is allowed to avail himself of a
benefit granted to him by the terms of the contract, provided that the contracting
parties have clearly and deliberately conferred a favor upon such person.
Kauffman vs. National Bank
The defendant bank for a valuable consideration paid by the PFPC, agreed to cause
a sum of money to be paid by its representative in New York to the plaintiff, who
was the president of the fiber company. Upon receiving the message, the banks
representative in New York cabled to the defendant the advisability of withholding
this money from Kauffman, in view of his reluctance to accept certain bills of the
fiber company. Agreeing to this suggestion, the defendant advised its
representative in New York to withhold payment to Kauffman. In view of these
facts, Kaufmann instituted this action to recover the amount due.
The right of plaintiff to maintain this action is undeniable, because the banks
promise to cause a definite sum of money to be paid to him in New York is a
stipulation pour autrui. The plaintiff clearly signified his acceptance of this
stipulation by demanding payment. Although the defendant had already directed
its New York representative to withhold payment when this demand was made, the
rights of the plaintiff cannot be considered to be prejudiced by this fact. The word
revoked as used in Art. 1311 of the Civil Code, must plpppbe understood to imply
revocation by the mutual consent of the contracting parties, or at least by the
direction of the party to whom the promise was made, in this case, the fiber
company.
Art. 1314 Violation induced by another.
Daywalt vs. Corporacion PP Agustinos Recoletos
Whatever may be the character of the liability which a stranger may incur by
advising or assisting one of the parties to evade performance, there is one
proposition upon which all must agree. This is, that the stranger cannot become
more extensively liable in damage for the non-performance of the contract that the
party in who behalf he intermeddles.
Art. 1315 Perfection of contracts.
De Murciano vs. Auditor General
found to have violated the rules and therefore was excluded from the contest. Now,
he questions the right of the defendant to disqualify him.
The bases if a right to a reward is in the nature of a contract and rests on one side
upon a valid offer and on the other side upon an acceptance of such offer, including
its terms and conditions. In competitive contests for reward, the acceptance must
be in strict conformity with the offer and a qualified acceptance does not create a
contract. The offeror may make his offer subject to any conditions he may see fit,
and all conditions so imposed will be material elements of the offer and contract.
The management of the central was in effect the referee of the contest and, if so, it
had the power to enforce the rules, and to disqualify the plaintiff for having
violated them.
Yuvieno vs. Dacuycuy
There was an offer on the part of the petitioner was made, that the land in which
the defendant is occupying is for sale and preference is given to those occupants
who wants to buy the property. Dacuycuy wrote back to the petitioners telling the
latter that they proceed to Tacloban because he agree to buy the property, so they
can negotiate the details.
Is there a perfected contract?
No, the court emphasized the word negotiate. Since the word negotiate belies
the claim of certainty to buy the properties. Even if the respondent assail that the
word negotiate pertains to accidental elements of the contract it is untenable. If
indeed the details being left by them for further negotiations were merely
accidental or formal ones, what need was there to say in the telegram that they
had still to negotiate such details, when, being unessential per their contention,
they could have just easily clarified and agreed upon petitioner would reach
Tacloban?
Valencia vs. RFC
RFC advertised to the general public an invitation to bid for the construction of a
building. Petitioner submitted his offer. RFC awarded to petitioner the plumbing
installations only. Petitioner then advised RFC that the plumbing installations be
awarded to the contractor of the main building. RFC now seek to recover sum of
money that was earlier given to the petitioner.
1. Petitioners offer was for the construction of respondents building with its
electrical and plumbing installations, whereas respondent awarded to him
only the plumbing installations. Hence, no meeting of the minds.
2. Petitioners offer was good only to a certain date because it was
accompanied by a bond that expired on such date. And acceptance of the
offer was made after the expiration of the bond.
3. The acceptance by respondent was made subject to the giving of a
performance bond and inasmuch as this condition was not fulfilled, no
contract exists between the parties.
First, each one of the items listed in petitioners offer was complete in itself.
Meaning, it was distinct and separate and independent form the other items.
Secondly, petitioners bond was accompanied by a bond. Although the bond itself
stated that it expired, it does not mean the bid lapsed on the same date. The bond
merely guarantees the performance of the principal obligation of petitioner herein.
This principal obligation may stand without said bond, which is merely accessory
thereto. Lastly, petitioner insists that the giving of a performance bond was a
condition precedent but such condition presupposes the existence of the contract.
Although, the latter was essential to the birth of some of the rights stipulated in
favor of petitioner herein, those of respondent were not conditioned upon the
giving of said performance bond.
Art. 1324 Withdrawal of the offer.
Mendoza vs. Comple
Defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff a parcel of land. Upon their mutual
agreement, the plaintiff were given a certain date within which to raise such
amount. The parties likewise agreed that the final deed of conveyance will be
executed by the defendant as soon as the plaintiff shall be ready with the cash.
Before the expiration of the time given to the plaintiff, defendant called of the deal.
Hence, this petition.
The complaint contained no allegation that the plaintiffs had agreed to buy to the
land. The negotiations merely amounted to an undertaking by defendant that if
plaintiff could raise such amount before the expiration of time given, he will sell it
to the latter. The New Civil Code provides that such promise is binding upon the
promisor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price. As
there was no distinct consideration, the defendant was not bound to stand by her
promise even if accepted, before withdrawal.
upon acceptance. In other words, since there may be no valid contract without a
cause or consideration, the promisor is not bound by his promise and may
accordingly, withdraw it. Pending notice of its withdrawal, his accepted promise
partakes, however, of the nature of an offer to sell which, if accepted results in a
perfected contract of sale.
Laudicio vs. Arias
The defendant Arias wrote a letter to the plaintiff giving him an option to lease a
building to a third person, and transmitting to him for that purpose a tentative
form of contract. On a later date, plaintiff sent a letter to defendant advising him
that all his propositions as amended and supplemented, were accepted. This letter
received by the defendant at 2:55 pm that day. On the same day, in the morning, at
11:25 defendant had already a written letter to the plaintiff, withdrawing the offer
to lease the building.
Is there already a perfected contract?
None. It must be noted that the parties agree that the circumstances under which
that offer was, were such that the offer could be withdrawn at any time before
acceptance. Under the Civil Code, an acceptance by letter does not have any effect
until it comes to the knowledge of the offeror. Consequently, when Mr. Arias wrote
Mr. Laudico, withdrawing the offer, he had the right to do so, inasmuch as he had
not yet received notice of the acceptance. And when the notice of acceptance was
received by Mr. Arias, it no longer had any effect, as the offer was not then in
existence, the same already having been withdrawn. There was no meeting of the
minds. Though both the offer and the acceptance existed, they did not meet to give
birth to a contract.
Art. 1327 Capacity to give consent
Braganza, et al. vs. De villa Abrille
Rosario de Braganza and her sons Rodolfo and Guillermo was required to pay
solidarily to De Villa Abrille. The petitioners received from Abrille a loan, since
there was no payment from the former, the latter instituted a claim for collection.
It is not denied that at the time the loan was granted, Rodolfo and Guillermo were
still minors.
Are the minors liable?
This case must be distinguished from the case of Mercado vs. Espiritu, because the
document signed therein by the minor specially stated he was of age, here there
was none. In other words in the Mercado case, the minor was guilty of active
misrepresentation. In contrast to this case that there was only a passive or
constructive misrepresentation. Hence, without any active misrepresentation on
the part of Rodolfo and Guillermo, they are not bound by their signatures reflected
on the promissory note in evidence to their loan.
Carlito vs. Jaojoco
Nine days after the execution of a document of sale of several parcels of land, the
vendor was declared mentally incapacitated, and later died.
Is the contract valid?
Yes. The fact of the vendor having been declared mentally incapacitated after the
execution of the document of sale does not prove conclusively that she was
incapacitated when the contract was executed, and it not having been priven that
the vendor was metally incapacitated at the time of the execution of the contract of
sale, which it was the obligation of the plaintiff to prive, the mental capacity of the
vendor must be presumed.
Art. 1331 Consent through mistake
Damasug vs. Modelo
Plaintiff who did not know how to read and write signed by a cross between her
Christian name and surname, a document which was presented to her as an
acknowledgement of an indebtedness. However, the document turned out to be a
sale of parcel of lands owned by the plaintiff. This action is for the annulment of
said document and recovery of the property.
The consent given by the plaintiff in the document is null and void as it was given
by mistake. It goes to the very substance of the thing which was the subject matter
of the contract, for, had the maker thereof truly understood the contents of said
document, she would neither have accepted nor authenticated it by her mark. It is
undeniable that she was deceived in order to obtain her consent. Hence, action will
prosper.
Art. 1332 Illiterate party
Bunyi vs. Reyes
There was a Venta con pacto de retro, the parcel of lands in question was with a
right to repurchase within two years. After two years lapsed there was no
repurchase that happened, petitioner now registered the land in his favor. Now, the
other party contends under Art. 1332 that the pacto de retro sale was not
explained to them fully. Hence, this petition to recover said lands.
The petition cannot prosper. Art. 1332, which was designed for the protection of
illiterates and of a party to a contract who sits at a disadvantage on account of his
ignorance, mental weakness or other handicaps. In this case, the respondent did
not in any way establish their illiteracy. Art. 1332 can only be invoked, whereby the
other party is an illiterate.
Art. 1335 Violence or Intimidation
Valles vs. Villa
When a person is under intimidation or inflicted with violence to obtain his
consent, he acts only as a mere instrument of the offender, he acts against his will.
He loses the personality of the actor. Contract is voidable.
We conclude that while the representation that plaintiff had the exclusive
franchise did not vitiate defendants consent to the contract, it was used by plaintiff
to get from defendant a share of 30% of the net profits. This is the dolo incidente,
because it was used to get the other partys consent to a big share in the profits,
an incidental matter in the agreement. Hence, only damages can be awarded.
Art. 1345 Definition, Concept and Requisites of Simulation
Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez
Plaintiff- appellant sold to her daughter several fishponds and the latter sold the
same property back to the appellant and her husband, step-father of the daughter,
the late Domingo Rodriguez, for the purpose of converting the property from
paraphernal to conjugal. Plainitiff-appellant not assails said contracts as simulated
or fictitious and therefore inexistent and null and void.
Is the contract null and void?
No. A characteristic of a simulated contract is that it is intended to produce no
legal effect or in any way alter the juridical situation of the parties. Thus, where a
person, in order to place his properties beyond the reach of his creditors simulates
the transfer of it to another, he does not really intend to divest himself of his title
and control of the property, hence, the deed of transfer is but a sham. However, in
this case, the transfer were done for the purpose of converting the property from
the paraphernal to conjugal thereby vesting a half interest in Rodriguez, and
evading the prohibition against donation from one spouse to another.
Pangadil vs. CFI
In their complaint filed in the trial court, they averred that petitioners were made
to sign the document on the misrepresentation that it was merely to ratify an oral
contract of mortgage executed by her father during the latters lifetime and not to
confirm an oral sale of land in question.
Is the contract simulated, therefore, null and void?
No. Assuming that the execution of the deed of ratification was attended by fraud,
such circumstance would only make the contract voidable or annullable. Further,
the document cannot be deemed absolutely simulated for they intended to be
bound by it, although it was to ratify a contract of oral mortgage instead of an oral
sale of land. In short, it is not a contract wherein the parties do not intend to be
bound at all which would thereby make it absolutely simulated and, therefore,
void.
Art. 1350 Cause, Definition and Concept of Contracts.
Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez
in onerous contracts the cause is understood to be for each contracting party, the
promise or prestation of thing or service by another. Since in each conveyance the
buyer became obligated pay a definite price in money, such undertaking
constituted in themselves actual causa or consideration for the conveyance of the
fishponds. That the prices were not paid does not make the sales inexistent for
want of cause. As ruled in Enriquez vs.Diaz, the consideration (causa) need not
pass from one party to another at the time the contract is entered into, x x x, the
consideration need not be paid at the time of the promise. The one promise is a
consideration for the other.
Art. 1351 Motives
Basic Books vs. E. Lopez, et al.
Lopez was an agent of the plaintiff, consigning books at his disposal profiting on a
commission basis. Despite repeated demands, Lopez was not able to account for
the value of the books. In order to secure payment, Lopez and one Kintanar
entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, wherein they bound themselves
jointly to pay the obligation on installments. However, there was no payment made.
Hence, plaintiff instituted a complaint to recover the value of the books. Lopez
confessed judgment but Kintanar denied liability, he averred that the contract he
entered was void because it was executed for the purpose of stifling Lopez
prosecution for estafa.
Is the contract on the part of Kintanar void?
No. While it may be inferred from Kintanars letter to the Basic Books, that his
motive in assuming obligation under the agreement was to help save Lopez from
the criminal case, it is not sufficient to declare the contract void. Art. 1351 of the
Civil Code provides that the particular motives of the parties in entering into a
contract are different from the cause thereof.
cause is the essential reason which moves the contracting parties to enter into it.
In other words, the cause is the immediate, direct and proximate reason which
justifies the creation of an obligation through the will of the contracting parties.
Applying this definition, , the cause of the agreement would be the existing account
of Lopez with the appellee.
Liguez vs. C.A
Lopez, a man of mature years donated properties in favor of Liguez, a young girl of
minor age. The donation is now being questioned, for having an illicit causa or
consideration.
Is the donation void?
Yes. Under Art. 1274, liberality of the donor is deemed causa only in those
contracts that are of pure beneficence, without any intent of producing any
satisfaction for the donor. In this case, the conveyance is not made out of pure
beneficence. Lopez was not moved exclusively by the desire to benefit Liguez, but
also to secure her cohabiting with him. Thus considered, the conveyance was
clearly predicated upon an illicit cause.
Appellant seeks to differentiate between the alleged liberality of Lopez, as causa
for the donation in her favor, and his desire with cohabiting with appellant, as
motives that impelled him to make the donation. There is an exception to the
general rule, those contracts that are conditioned upon the attainment of the
motives of either party. Motives may be regarded as cause when it predetermines
the purpose of the contract. In this case, Lopez would not have conveyed the
property in question had he known that appellant would refuse to cohabit with
him; so that the cohabitation was an implied condition to the donation, and being
unlawful, necessarily tainted the donation itself.
Art. 1356 Form of contracts
Dauden-Hernaez vs. De los Angeles
Dauden-Hernaez is a motion fil actress seeking compensation from Hollywood Far
East Production and its president for her services as lead actress in their film. The
latter refused to pay the former on the ground that there was no written
agreement between them and the complaint was defective on its face for violating
Art. 1356 and 1358.
Will the action prosper?
Yes. It is recognized that a contract need not be in writing to be binding. This is the
general rule under the New Civil Code and the exception is the formal or solemn
contracts which is required to be in writing to be enforceable. To add, although the
Statute of Frauds provide that all other contracts where the amount involved
exceed five hundred pesos must appear in writing, nowhere in the law states that
the absence of written form in this case will make the agreement invalid. It is
adduced to be in writing for the purpose of enforceability against third persons.
Shaffer vs. Palma
A complaint was dismissed on the ground that that the agreement alleged in
complaint involves the amount of P118, 000 cannot be enforced because it is not
in writing.
Is the dismissal of the complaint valid?
No. Whether the agreement is in writing or not is a question of evidence.
Nevertheless, even grating that the agreement is not in writing, this circumstance
does not militate against the validity or enforceability of said agreement, because
contracts are binding upon the parties in whatever form they may have been
entered into unless the law requires otherwise. It has been held that the writing
required under Art. 1358 is mere for convenience and so the agreement alleged in
the complaint in the present case can be enforced even if it may not be in writing.
To add, nowhere in Art. 1358 shows that such requirement is necessary for the
validity and enforceability of the contract.
Yes. Reformation will be given where there is a mistake on one side and fraud or
unfair dealing on the other.
Manila Engineering Co. vs. Cranston and Heacock
Plaintiff wrote the defendant in which the peso sign was used. The letter was made
the basis of a contract entered between the two. On a later date, plaintiff rendered
a statement for the amount which it then claimed in dollars and for the first time
learned that the letter was written in pesos. It appears in the original draft the
letter was written in dollars and the mistake had been made in the copying of the
letter by a clerk in the office.
Can this be reformed?
Yes. It conclusively appears from the facts that it was intended that the dollar sign
was to be used, and the defendant knew or in the ordinary course of business
should have known that a mistake was made. Hence, the contract will be reformed.
Art. 1381 Contracts that are rescissible
Serra vs. Rodriguez
Sps. Loring filed a complaint for recovery against Sps. Ordonez based on a
promissory note. Properties of the latter were under levy since their assets is not
sufficient to pay their debts. On a later date, the wife (Ordonez) alone by herself
without the consent of her husband, executed a chattel mortgaged in favor of the
herein plaintiff as security for a loan. Subsequently, the herein plaintiff filed a
third-party claim over the attached property.
What is the remedy of Sps. Loring?
Rescission. The chattel mortgage may be rescinded on the ground that it refers to
things under litigation and entered into by the defendant debtor without the
knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent authority or that the same
was executed in fraud of creditors.
Grace Park Engineering vs. Dimaporo
Dimaporo is contending that although that there may be rescission of their
contract with the appellee, there is no need to restore the machineries that was
given to him by the other party on the ground that under their agreement, the
obligation did not end with the shipment of such machineries, it must further have
the capability to produce a specific number of cassava flour and since because this
machineries were never installed, it was not known whether the same could
produce such number of cassava flour.
Can there be restitution?
Yes. Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object
of the contract, together with their fruits, and the price with its interest;
consequently, it can be carried out only when he who demands rescission can
return whatever may be obliged to restore.
in the name of another will be deemed unenforceable. In this case, there was no
showing that there was ratification whatsoever. With regard to Ricardo Esquivel
their son that is already of age, the deed of conveyance is void for there was lack of
authority on the part of his mother.
Eusebio vs. Proceso, et al.
The intervenors charge that there is no written instrument submitted in evidence
to support the finding that Gonzales sold his rights under his application, and that
the finding is contrary to the rule that no evidence is admissible to prove a sale of
realty other than by a written instrument.
This objection is untenable because the Statute of Frauds does not apply when the
case is neither for a violation of a contract nor for the performance thereof
(Pascual vs. Realty Investment).
Inigo vs. Estate of Maloto
The issue is that no written document was executed to record the deed of sale or
for that matter, the payment of the purchase price of the house and land. These are
the considerations which impelled the court to declare that the contract is
unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
As a rule, a verbal contract for the sale of a real property is unenforceable unless
ratified. For it offends the Statute of Frauds. However, Statute of Frauds only
applies to executory contracts not to contracts partially or totally performed. In
this case, the contract was already consummated for there was already a price
paid for the land and the plaintiff already performed acts of ownership towards the
land. It is immaterial whether the receipt for the sale was in writing or not.
Because oral evidence of the alleged consummated sale of land is not forbidden
by the Statute of Frauds and may not be excluded in court.
*Note that the statute likewise has no application when it is claimed that the true
agreement is not expressed by the contract. The remedy is either reformation or
annulment.
Paredes vs. Espino
Whether or not a mere letter embodying all the essential terms of a contract satisfy
the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, making the contract enforceable.
The Statute of Frauds does not require that the contract itself be in writing. 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. In this case where the deal was closed by letter and telegram,
which embodied all the essential terms of a contract and they satisfy the
requirement of the Statute of Frauds.
Defendant argues that the authenticity of the letters has not been established. That
is not necessary for the purpose of showing prima facie that the contract is
enforceable. As held in Shaffer vs. Palma, whether the argument 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. The fact that the contract is backed by letter and
telegram, the same being a sufficient memorandum, his cause of action is thereby
established.
Art. 1409 Void or inexistent contracts
Omico Mining and Industrial Corporation vs. Vallejos
A judge entered into an employment contract under the plaintiff corporation, the
former being the head of the legal department of the latter. Now he sues the latter
for unpaid salary. Will the action prosper?
No. The judge should have known or ought to know, that when he was elevated to
the Bench as a judge, his right to practice law as an attorney was suspended and
continued to be suspended as long as he occupied the judicial position. It is evident
that the aforesaid contract is void because a contract, whose cause, object of
purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy is
considered inexistent and void ab initio.
Art. 1410 Action or defense imprescriptible
Garanciang vs. Garanciang
The plaintiffs were made to sign, thru misrepresentation, fraud and deceit some
papers purportedly to be an application for a loan which turned out to be a deed of
sale of lands without consideration.
The trial court erred in dismissing the case relying on Art. 391 of the Civil Code,
which provides that an action for annulment on the ground of fraud prescribes in 4
years, computed from the discovery of fraud. However, the complaint alleges not
only fraud in the execution of the deed of sale sought to be annulled, but total
absence of cause or consideration. Hence, it is not merely voidable but void. And
an action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, or absolutely void does not
prescribe.
Art. 1412/1413 Criminal/ Unlawful contracts
Inco, et al. vs. Enriquez
Petitioner and respondent entered into a contract with each other, the latter were
allowed to continue occupying the area possessed by them as long as they paid to
petitioner the sum agreed upon between them. In exchange, respondent and his
wife renounced whatever rights they had to buy the portion of the lot occupied by
them in order that petitioner might acquire the entire lot, which was being resold
by the Government. Transfer title was given to the petitioner, now he assails the
validity of the lease contract on the grounds that it lacks written consent and
approval by authorities and that it was entered into by him without the consent of
his wife.
There is no problem with regard any administrative violation. But even
disregarding that matter, the Court of Appeals correctly applied the in pari delicto
rule, that the petitioner and his wife cannot invoke furtherance of the public policy
to in order to escape from it. They would not obtain the title of the lots if not for
the spouses who agreed to give up their own claims over the portion they
occupied. It was equally obvious that the sole consideration for the withdrawal of
the Enriquezes was Incos promise to allow them to remain in possession at a
nominal rate.
Bough vs. Cantiveros
The defendants induced the plaintiff to sell her lands fictitiously to them so that the
latters land will be safe from any contest particularly from her husband. Obviously,
the inducement was made fraudulently.
The party asking to be relieved from the agreement which she was induced to
enter into by means of fraud, was thus in delicto but not in pari delicto with the
other party. The deed was procured by misrepresentation and fraud sufficient to
vitiate the transaction.
Art. 1413 Recovery of usurious interest
Angel Jose Warehousing Co. vs. Chelda Enterprises
Whether the illegal terms as to the payment of interest likewise renders a nullity
the legal terms as to payments of the principal debt. Art. 1420 of the Civil Code
provides: In case of a divisible contract, if the illegal terms can be separated from
the legal ones, the latter may be enforced.
In simple loan with stipulation of usurious interest the prestation of the debtor to
pay the principal debt, which is the cause of the contract, is not illegal. The
illegality lies only as to the prestation to pay the stipulated interest, hence being
separable, and the latter only should be deemed void, since it is the only one that is
illegal.
*** Exceptions to the rule of in pari delicto
Perez vs. Herranz
Plaintiff and defendant bought a steamer worth 58,000. 48, 00 was paid by the
latter, while 10, 00 only was paid by the former. However, the bill of sale was made
in favor of the plaintiff since that he was a Filipino, the defendant being a Spaniard
and not a qualified to hold a steamer in his name. Such an arrangement, involving
a false affidavit or statement, was contrary to the coastwise laws of the country.
As a rule, in criminal and illegal contracts, the parties should be left as they are by
the court, each having no action against the other. But in this case, even without
referring to the illegal act, a proper cause of action could be made out. Plaintiff
could present a prima facie case in his favor by presenting the deed of sale; the
defendant could allege that it had been agreed that co-ownership was to exist
between them, and both allegations can be given without referring to the illegal
affidavit of purpose. Thus, inasmuch as co-ownership was duly proved, plaintiff and
defendant were declared co-owners in proportion to their respective contributions
to the price.