Paredes v.

Espino 22 SCRA 1000 (1968)

Facts: Appellant Cirilo Paredes had filed an action to compel defendant Jose Espino to execute a deed of
sale and to pay for damages. The complaint al-leged that the defendant "had entered into a sale" to plaintiff
of Lot. No. 67 of the Puerto Princesa Cadastr at P4.00 per square meter and that the deal had been closed
by letter and telegram but the actual execution of the deed of sale and payment of the price were deferred
to the arrival of defendant of Puerto Princesa; that the defendsnt upon arrival had refused to execute the
deed of sale although plaintiff was able and willing to to lay the price, and comtinued to refuse depite
written demands of plaintiff; that as a result, plain-tiff had lost expected prifits from a resale of the property,
and caused the plaintiff mental anguish and suffering, for which reason the complaint prayed for specific
performance and damages. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground that the complaint stated
no cause of action andthe plain-tiff's claim upon which the action was founded unenforceable under the
statute of frauds
Issue: Whether there is a perfected contract of sale through letter or telegram

Held: The letter and telegram constitute an adequate memorandum of the transaction. They are signed by
the defendant and all essential terms of the contract are present and they satisfy the requirements of the
statute of frauds.