Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Carbonnel v. Poncio, Et Al. G.R. No. L-11231, 12 May 1958

    Uploaded by

    Lexa L. Dotyal
    24 views1 page
    The petitioner allegedly purchased land from the respondent and partially paid for it, with the agreement that the respondent could stay on the land for one year. However, the respondent then sold the same land to other parties. The respondents claimed the original sale was unenforceable under the statute of frauds since it was not in writing. The court ruled that the statute of frauds does not apply to contracts that are partially performed, as was the case here. Part performance takes an oral contract out of the statute of frauds, allowing oral evidence to prove both the contract and part performance.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Carbonnel 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner allegedly purchased land from the respondent and partially paid for it, with the agreement that the respondent could stay on the land for one year. However, the respondent then sold the same land to other parties. The respondents claimed the original sale was unenforceable under the statute of frauds since it was not in writing. The court ruled that the statute of frauds does not apply to contracts that are partially performed, as was the case here. Part performance takes an oral contract out of the statute of frauds, allowing oral evidence to prove both the contract and part performance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    24 views1 page

    Carbonnel v. Poncio, Et Al. G.R. No. L-11231, 12 May 1958

    Uploaded by

    Lexa L. Dotyal
    The petitioner allegedly purchased land from the respondent and partially paid for it, with the agreement that the respondent could stay on the land for one year. However, the respondent then sold the same land to other parties. The respondents claimed the original sale was unenforceable under the statute of frauds since it was not in writing. The court ruled that the statute of frauds does not apply to contracts that are partially performed, as was the case here. Part performance takes an oral contract out of the statute of frauds, allowing oral evidence to prove both the contract and part performance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Carbonnel v. Poncio, et al.

    G.R. No. L-11231, 12 May 1958


    FACTS:

    Petitioner Rosario Carbonnel allegedly purchased a parcel of land from respondent Jose Poncio. Such land was mortgage
    to a bank which respondent has an obligation to pay. It was alleged that petitioner partially pay the respondent of the
    price of the land and to assume respondent`s responsibility to recover the land. One of the conditions of the alleged sale
    was that Poncio would be allowed to continue in staying in said land for one year. However, Poncio has conveyed the
    same land the other respondents herein which are the spouses Mr. and Mrs. Infante. Respondents herein claims that
    the previous sale between Poncio and petitioner was unenforceable due to a violation of the Statute of Fraud as the
    alleged sale was never deduced to writing. Petitioner here claims ownership of the said property.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the transaction falls under the Statute of Frauds.

    RULING:

    No. The Statute of Frauds is applicable only to executory contracts, not to contracts that are totally or partially
    performed. The reason is simple. In executory contracts there is a wide field for fraud because, unless they be in writing
    there is no palpable evidence of the intention of the contracting parties. However, if a contract has been totally or
    partially performed, the exclusion of parol evidence would promote fraud or bad faith, for it would enable the
    defendant to keep the benefits already derived by him from the transaction in litigation, and, at the same time, evade
    the obligations, responsibilities or liabilities assumed or contracted by him thereby. So that when the party concerned
    has pleaded partial performance, such party is entitled to a reasonable chance to ,establish by parol evidence the truth
    of this allegation, as well as the contract itself. "The recognition of the exceptional effect of part performance in taking
    an oral contract out of the statute of frauds involves the principle that oral evidence is admissible in such cases to prove
    both the contract and the part performance of the contract"

    You might also like