CIRILO PAREDES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE L. ESPINO, defendant-appellee.

G.R. No. L-23351 March 13, 1968

REYES, J.B.L., Actg. C.J SUPREME COURT EN BANC

NATURE OF THE ACTION: Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance

FACTS:
Parades had filed an action to compel Espino to execute a deed of sale and to pay damages.
Paredes alleged that the defendant "had entered into the sale" to him of Lot No. 67 of the Puerto
Princesa Cadastre at P4.00 a square meter; 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 at Puerto Princesa; that defendant upon arrival had refused to execute the deed of
sale although Paredes was able and willing to pay the price, and continued to refuse despite
written demands of plaintiff; that as a result, plaintiff had lost expected profits from a resale of
the property, and caused plaintiff mental anguish and suffering, for which reason the complaint
prayed for specific performance and damages. Espino filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground
that the complaint stated no cause of action, and that Paredes’ claim upon which the action was
founded was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Paredes opposed in writing the motion
to dismiss.

The Court below dismissed the complaint on the ground that there being no written contract.
Paredes appealed to the SC.

ISSUE: Whether the enforcement of the contract pleaded in the complaint is barred by the
Statute of Frauds and if so, did the Court a quo plainly erred in holding that it was unenforceable.

RULING: Yes. the appealed order is set aside, and the case remanded to the Court of origin for
trial and decision.

The Statute of Frauds, embodied in Article 1403 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, does not
require that the contract itself be in writing. The plain text of Article 1403, paragraph (2) is clear
that a written note or memorandum, embodying the essentials of the contract and signed by the
party charged, or his agent, suffices to make the verbal agreement enforceable, taking it out of
the operation of the statute.

In the case at bar, the complaint in its paragraph 3 pleads that the deal had been closed by letter
and telegram" and the letter referred to was evidently the one copy of which was appended as
Exhibit A to plaintiff's opposition to the motion dismiss.

We have in them therefore, all the essential terms of the contract, and they satisfy the
requirements of the Statute of Frauds. Defendant-appellee argues that the authenticity of the
letters has not been established. That is not necessary for the purpose of showing prima facie that
the contract is enforceable.

Whether the agreement is in writing or not, is a question of evidence; and the authenticity of the
writing need not be established until the trial is held. The plaintiff having alleged that the
contract is backed by letter and telegram, and the same being a sufficient memorandum, his
cause of action is thereby established, especially since the defendant has not denied the letters in
question. At any rate, if the Court below entertained any doubts about the existence of the written
memorandum, it should have called for a preliminary hearing on that point, and not dismissed
the complaint.