FACTS:

Petitioners were willing to sell to private respondents the subject property for P6,500,000
in installments provided the latter made known their decision to buy not later than July
31, 1978. When petitioners' representative went to Cebu City for the purpose of
perfecting and consummating the transaction, respondents and said representative found a
deviation between the terms of payment and what the respondents had in mind, a mode of
payment which the latter contend to be certain and is the reason why they agreed to buy
the lot. Because of this, the contract remained unsigned by respondents and the latter
brought an action for specific performance because they allege that petitioners without
giving notice to plaintiffs, changed the mode of payment with respect to the balance of
P4,500,000.00 by imposing upon them to pay same amount within thirty (30) days from
execution of the contract instead of ninety (90) days. Petitioner filed an action to dismiss
the action filed by respondent which was denied by the judge.

Petitioners thus seek to declare void for being in grave abuse of discretion the orders of
respondent judge which because according to them the complaint states no cause of
action and/or that the claim alleged therein is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

ISSUES:
1) WON respondents have a casue of action
2) WON the judge erred in claiming that respondents’ claim is not unenforceable under
the statute of frauds

RULING: The Judge’s orders are SET ASIDE and private respondents’ complaint is
dismissed.

1) Respondents’ claim is unenforceable under the statute of frauds.

Because there is no evidence as to an express statement as to the 90 day payment of the
balance, the necessary conclusion is that the parties had agreed to it orally. Thus there
was a perfected agreement of purchase and sale between them and petitioners, and such
oral contract involving the "sale of real property" comes squarely under the Statute of
Frauds in view of Article 1403, No. 2(e) of the Civil Code. The respondent judge
assumed that the requirement of perfection of contract under Article 1475 of the Civil
Code which provides that "(t)he contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a
meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the
price", the Statute would no longer apply as long as the total price is mentioned in some
note or memorandum and there is no need of any indication of the manner in which such
total price is to be paid.

The Statute of Frauds read together with the perfection requirements of Article 1475 of
the Civil Code must be understood and applied in the sense that the idea of payment on
installments must be in the requisite of a note or memorandum therein contemplated.
Under the Statute of Frauds, the contents of the note or memorandum, merely indicative
for an adequate understanding of all the essential elements of the entire agreement, may
be said to be the contract itself, except as to the form. a motion to dismiss invoking the
Statute of Frauds may be filed even if the absence of compliance does not appear an the
face of the complaint. Such absence may be the subject of proof in the motion stage of
the proceedings.