Case Report Cirilo Paredes V Espino

Cirilo Paredes V.
Jose Espino L-23351, March 13, 1968
Facts: Espino, owner of Lot No. 67 sold his land to Paredes. The deal was sealed by letter
and telegram, with a letter signed by Espino but the execution of the Deed of Sale and
payment of the price was postponed until Espino’s arrival at Puerto Princesa, the place
agreed for execution of the contract. However, upon arrival, Espino refused to execute the
deed of sale despite the willingness of Paredes to pay the agreed price. Espino continued to
refuse despite Paredes written demands. His defense was that there was no written contract
of sale, thus unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Paredes filed an action for specific
performance and damages against Espino.
Issue: Whether of not the contract is enforceable under the statute of Frauds?
HELD: The contract is enforceable. The Statute of Frauds Embodied in Article 1403 of civil
code of the Philippines does not require that the contract itself be in writing. A written note
or memorandum signed by the party charged (Espino) is enough to make the oral agreement
enforceable. The letters written by Espino together constitute a sufficient memorandum of the
transaction; they are signed by Espino, refer to the property sold, give its area, and the
purchase price — the essential terms of the contract. A “sufficient memorandum” does not
have to be a single instrument — it may be found in two or more documents.
Statute of Frauds (Is verbally)

1. Contracts not to be performed within a year
2. A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another.
3. Agreement is consideration of marriage
4. Sale of personal property for P500 or more
5. Lease of real property for more than 1 year
6. As representation as to the credit of a third person
7. Sale of Real property (art. 1358)Link to 1403, Example: if there is not in writing it is
unenforceable. Here enforceable contract is applicable for the reason of statute of
frauds.
Exception: Partially executed contracts, because the seller and buyer were already
agreed upon thru letter and telegram.
There is valid contract the reason is contract is consensual.
(24) BAR QUESTION

Of what statutes is the term “Statute of Frauds” descriptive?
ANS.:
(a) The term “Statute of Frauds” is descriptive of those laws, statutes, or provisions which
require certain agreements to be in writing before they can be enforced in a judicial action.
The law considers the memory of man unreliable, hence the need for the writing. The statute
was designed to prevent fraud and the commission of perjury. (See Nat. Bank v. Phil. Veg. Oil
Co., 49 Phil. 857).
To what kind of contract are these statutes applicable, and in what kind of actions may
they be invoked?
(b) These statutes are applicable only to executory contracts, not to partially or totally
executed or performed contracts. (Facturan v. Sabanal, 81 Phil. 512). (c) These statutes may
be invoked in actions for damages for breach of said agreement or for specifi c performance
thereof, and not in any other matter. (Facturan v. Sabanal, 81 Phil. 512; see Lim v. Lim, 10
Phil. 635)
Cirilo Paredes v. Jose L. Espino L-23351, Mar. 13, 1968
FACTS: Cirilo Paredes fi led an action against Jose L. Espino to execute a

deed of sale and to pay damages. In his complaint, Paredes alleged that
Espino has sold to him Lot No. 62 of the Puerto Princesa Cadastre at P4.00 a
square meter; that the deal had been closed by “letter and telegram;” but that
actual execution of the deed of sale and payment of the price were deferred to
the arrival of Espino at Puerto Princesa, Palawan; that Espino upon arrival
had refused to execute the deed of sale although Paredes was able and
willing to pay the price; that Espino continued to refuse despite written
demands by Paredes; that as a result, Paredes has lost expected profi ts from
a resale of the property. As proof of the sale, Paredes annexed the following
letter signed by Espino
— “Dear Mr. Paredes. . . . please be informed that after consulting with my
wife, we both decided to accept your last offer of P4.00 per square meter of
the lot which contains 1,826 square meters and on cash basis.
“In order that we can facilitate the transaction of the sale in question, we
(Mrs. Espino and I) are going there (Puerto Princesa, Pal.) to be there during
the last week of May.” Paredes also attached both a previous letter from
Espino (re the offer) and a telegram from Espino advising Paredes of Espino’s
arrival by boat. Espino’s defense was that there was no written contract of
sale, and that, therefore, the contract is unenforceable under the Statute of
Frauds.
HELD: The contract is enforceable. The Statute of Frauds does not require
that the contract itself be in writing. A written note or memorandum signed by
the party charged (Espino) is enough to make the oral agreement
enforceable. The letters written by Espino together constitute a sufficient
memorandum of the transaction; they are signed by Espino, refer to the
property sold, give its area, and the purchase price — the essential terms of
the contract. A “suffi cient memorandum” does not have to be a single
instrument — it may be found in two or more documents.

Case Report Cirilo Paredes V Espino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Report Cirilo Paredes V Espino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Report Cirilo Paredes V Espino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cirilo Paredes V.

Jose Espino L-23351, March 13, 1968

Statute of Frauds (Is verbally)

There is valid contract the reason is contract is consensual.

(24) BAR QUESTION

FACTS: Cirilo Paredes fi led an action against Jose L. Espino to execute a

You might also like