Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1952 > May 1952 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4002 May 12, 1952 - RAMON PASCUAL v. REALTY INVESTMENT, INC.

091 Phil 257:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4002. May 12, 1952.]

RAMON PASCUAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REALTY INVESTMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Garcia & Negado for Appellant.

Arturo L. Rodriguez for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. STATUTE OF FRAUDS; VERBAL AGREEMENT TO SELL. — An action to enforce an alleged verbal agreement to sell a parcel of land claimed to be occupied by plaintiff, may be dismissed, it appearing that under the statute of frauds said verbal agreement cannot be enforced, nor evidence thereon presented, because it has not been, if no writing, note or memorandum to prove such agreement is presented in evidence as required by section 21(e) of Rule 123.

2. ID.; WHEN APPLICABLE. — Where a verbal contract of sale is adduced not for the purpose of enforcing it, but as a basis of the possession of the person claiming to be the owner of the land, the statute of frauds is not applicable (Almirol Et. Al. v. Monserrat, 48 Phil., 67), in the same way that it does not apply to contracts which are either totally or partially performed upon the theory that there is a wide field for the commission of frauds in executory contracts which can only be prevented by requiring them to be in writing, a fact which is reduced to a minimum in executed contracts because the intention of the parties become apparent by their execution (Hernandez v. Andal, 44 Off. Gaz. (8) 2672. III Moran on the Rules of Court, 3rd ed., pp. 181-182).


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


Plaintiff filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel the defendant to sell to him a parcel of land with an area of 450 square meters, more or less, upon prior payment of the purchase price at the rate of P25 per square meter.

Plaintiff alleges that since 1912 he has occupied said parcel of land as tenant while the same was still under the administration of Angel Tuason; that in 1941, said property was transferred to the defendant to be subdivided and sold to the public; that when plaintiff came to know that the property was for sale he offered to buy it from the defendant, and the latter, through its manager, one Mr. Aquino, verbally agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff provided that he would agree to pay the price at the rate of P15 per square meter; that the plaintiff agreed to pay the price fixed by the defendant which however failed to perfect the sale and instead asked for more time to prepare the necessary papers; that in February 1948, the defendant increased the price to P25 per square meter to which increase the plaintiff agreed, but this notwithstanding the defendant failed to carry out the sale. Hence this action.

Instead of answering the complaint, defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that "whatever cause of action is alleged therein the same is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds." Defendant contends that the purpose of the action is to compel the said defendant to execute a deed of sale of a parcel of land on a supposed verbal agreement to sell and inasmuch as under section 21(e), Rule 123, of the Rules of Court, an agreement to sell real property should be made in writing, or at least it should appear in a note or a memorandum, in order that a suit based thereon may be enforceable, the present action cannot be maintained and should be dismissed.

The court granted the motion and, accordingly, dismissed the complaint without pronouncement as to costs. The case is now before this Court in view of the appeal interposed by the plaintiff.

After a careful perusal of the allegations of the complaint, we are of the opinion that the lower court did not err in dismissing the complaint for the reason that the purpose of this action is to enforce an alleged verbal agreement to sell to the plaintiff a parcel of land which is claimed to have been occupied by the plaintiff as a tenant since 1912, it appearing that under the statute of frauds said verbal agreement cannot be enforced, nor evidence thereon presented, because it has not been made in writing, nor does it appear in a note or memorandum, as required by said statute (Rule 123, section 21(e), Rules of Court).

But plaintiff contends that this transaction does not come under the statute of frauds in view of the fact that (1) he took possession of the property as a consequence of the verbal contract to sell he had with the defendant, and (2) he has made substantial improvements thereon upon the realization that he had already acquired the right to purchase the same by virtue of said agreement. And this is so, he contends, because where there is a partial performance of the contract to sell, or where possession of the land has been taken by a purchaser and improvements thereon made as a consequence of said contract to sell, the rule prohibiting the presentation of oral evidence does not apply because the statute does not render the contract void or without effect but merely unavailable for the purpose of enforcing the contract itself.

The theory advanced by counsel would be tenable if the requisite facts that would take this case out of the rule were present, for then it will be considered as one of those cases that are excepted from the operation of the statute; but no such facts appear in the complaint, as can be seen from a perusal thereof. Thus, while it is alleged that plaintiff has occupied the land since 1912, there is nothing alleged therein to the effect that he has taken possession thereof in view of a supposed verbal contract he had with the defendant to purchase it, nor is there any allegation that he has made improvements thereon because and as a consequence of said supposed contract to sell. This case having been dismissed on a mere motion to dismiss, the merits of the order of the court can only be gauged upon a consideration of the allegations appearing in the complaint, and upon no other. We agree with counsel that where a parol contract of sale is adduced not for the purpose of enforcing it, but as a basis of the possession of the person claiming to be the owner of the land, the statute of frauds is not applicable (Almirol Et. Al., v. Monserrat, 48 Phil., 67), in the same way that it does not apply to contracts which are either totally or partially performed upon the theory that there is a wide field for the commission of frauds in executory contracts which can only be prevented by requiring them to be in writing, a fact which is reduced to a minimum in executed contracts because the intention of the parties become apparent by their execution (Hernandez v. Andal, 44 Off. Gaz. (No. 8), 2672. III Moran on the Rules of Court, 3rd ed., pp. 181-182). But, as we have already pointed out, this situation does not here obtain for the reason that the complaint does not contain the requisite allegations. On the contrary, it alleges that plaintiff occupied the land as a tenant since 1912. There is, therefore, no room for the application of the theory advanced by counsel for the Appellant.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor and Labrador, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1952 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4367 May 2, 1952 - GENEROSA TORREFIEL, ET AL. v. ANASTACIO TORIANO

    091 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-3318 May 5, 1952 - CORNELIO ANTIQUERA v. SOTERO BALUYOT

    091 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-5482 May 5, 1952 - TRANQUILINO ROVERO v. RAFAEL AMPARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-4741 May 7, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO CAMO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-5514 May 7, 1952 - PEDRO CALANO v. PEDRO CRUZ

    091 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-4472 May 8, 1952 - ESPIRIDION RONE v. VICTOR CLARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5047 May 8, 1952 - VICENTE PANG KOK HUA v. REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS

    091 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-4002 May 12, 1952 - RAMON PASCUAL v. REALTY INVESTMENT, INC.

    091 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-4615 May 12, 1952 - JUAN DULDULAO, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    091 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-4133 May 13, 1952 - AGUSTINA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE CARRILLO v. FRANCISCA SALAK DE PAZ

    091 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4893 May 13, 1952 - PEDRO GAMBOA v. JOSE TEODORO

    091 Phil 270

  • G.R. Nos. L-4100 & L-4102 May 15, 1952 - INTERPROVINCIAL AUTOBUS COMPANY v. LUIS CLARETE

    091 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-4156 May 15, 1952 - FLORENCIA VITUG v. DONATA MONTEMAYOR

    091 Phil 286

  • G.R. Nos. L-4218-19 May 19, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO OBENIA

    091 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4420 May 19, 1952 - CESAR REYES v. MAX BLOUSE

    091 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-3899 May 21, 1952 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORINO CERVO

    091 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-4189 May 21, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JACINTO SANTOS

    091 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-4234 May 21, 1952 - ABBOT LABORATORIES v. CELEDONIO AGRAVA

    091 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-3391 May 23, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN HERNANDEZ

    091 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. L-4132 May 23, 1952 - FRANCISCO M. ALONSO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    091 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-4333 May 23, 1952 - MARY HAYDEN ARCACHE v. NICOLAS LIZARES & CO., INC., ET AL.

    091 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-3646 May 26, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    091 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-4043 May 26, 1952 - CENON S. CERVANTES v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL

    091 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-4783 May 26, 1952 - JULITA RELUCIO v. RAMON R. SAN JOSE, ETC.

    091 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. L-4869 May 26, 1952 - ESTEBAN MANGAOANG v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LA UNION

    091 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-3538 May 28, 1952 - JUAN LUNA SUBDIVISION v. M. SARMIENTO

    091 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-4061 May 28, 1952 - CENTRAL VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURING CO. v. PHIL. OIL INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION

    091 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-4091 May 28, 1952 - MARIANO M. PARAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

    091 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. L-4181 May 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. RODOLFO GERARDO

    091 Phil 395

  • G.R. Nos. L-4231 y L-4232 May 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ARTURO ALFARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-4316 May 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIGINIO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    091 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-4340 May 28, 1952 - REBECCA LEVIN v. JOAQUIN V. BASS

    091 Phil 419

  • G.R. Nos. L-4378-79 May 28, 1952 - MUNICIPALITY OF GATTARAN v. DOROTEO ELIZAGA

    091 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-4533 May 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MORALES

    091 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. L-4813 May 28, 1952 - ASSOCIATION OF BEVERAGE EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. JOSE FIGUERAS

    091 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-4229 May 29, 1952 - DALMACIO FALCASANTOS v. HOW SUY CHING

    091 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4373 May 29, 1952 - ENRIQUE BAUTISTA v. LEONCIA REYES

    091 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-4683 May 29, 1952 - OLIMPIO NEÑARIA v. JOSE P. VELUZ

    091 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-4606 May 30, 1952 - RAMON B. FELIPE v. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 482