You are on page 1of 2

Ortega v Leonardo

Maria Ortega averred that long before and until her house has been
completely destroyed during the liberation of the City of Manila, she
occupied Lot 1, Block 3. Located at San Andres Street, Malate, Manila
After the liberation, she re-occupied it but Daniel Leonardo asserted
that he too had a right to a portion of the land.
During the occupation, Leonardo asked Ortega to desist from
pressing claims and he promised her if he succeeded in getting the
title to Lot 1, he would sell her a portion thereof with an area of 55.60
square meters, at P25.00 per square meter. In return, Ortega would
pai for surveying and subdivision of the lot and should continue
holding the lot by paying a monthly rental of P10 until said portion
has been segregated and the purchase price fully paid.
Ortega accepted the agreement and desisted from further claims.
Leonardo acquired the title and in return Ortega caused the survey
and segregation of the portion which Leonardo promised to sell.
Ortega had a subdivision plan, her lot known as 1B o Had her sons
house remodelled and it extended over said lot and she to defendant
the full purchase price on July 1954.
Defendant refused to accept payment.
Lower Court: oral agreement to sell is not enforceable o Plaintiff: the
contract was already partially performed due to the promise of
defendant WN there was already partial performance on the part of
the plaintiff? YES Partial performance of sale is not restricted only to
partial payment of purchase price. Statute of Frauds lists other act
of partial performance such as: possession, making of improvements,
rendition of services
Continued possession under an oral contract of sale, by one already
in possession as a tenant, has been held a sufficient part performance,
where accompanied by other acts which characterize the continued
possession and refer it to the contract of purchase. Especially is this
true where the circumstances of the case include the making of
substantial, permanent, and valuable improvements.
The complaint in this case described several circumstance indicating
partial performance: o relinquishment of rights
compromise to give up claim o continued possession, o building of
improvements,
the making of valuable permanent improvements on the land by the
purchaser, in pursuance of the agreement and with the knowledge of
the vendor, has been said to be the strongest and the most
unequivocal act of part performance by which a verbal contract to sell
land is taken out of the statute of frauds, and is ordinarily an
important element in such part performance o tender of payment plus
the surveying of the lot at plaintiff's expense and A tender or offer
of payment, declined by the vendor, has been said to be equivalent to
actual payment, for the purposes of determining whether or not there
has been a part performance of the contract. This is apparently true
where the tender is by a purchaser who has made improvements. But
the doctrine now generally accepted, that not even the payment of the
purchase price, without something more, . . . is a sufficient part
performance. (49 American Jurisprudence p. 772.) o the payment of
rentals.

You might also like