This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-04-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The same is true even if the sale is a verbal one, because it is held that when a verbal contract has been completed, executed or partially consummated, its enforceability will not be barred by the Statute of Frauds, which applies only to an executory agreement.[38] Thus, where a party has performed his obligation, oral evidence will be admitted to prove the agreement. And, where it was proven that one party had delivered the thing sold to another, then the contract was partially executed and the Statute of Frauds does not apply.[39] | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that contracts are perfected by mere consent, upon the acceptance by the offeree of the offer made by the offeror.[20] For a contract, to arise, the acceptance must be made known to the offeror.[21] Moreover, the acceptance of the thing and the cause, which are to constitute a contract, may be express or implied as can be inferred from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the contracting parties.[22] A contract will be upheld as long as there is proof of consent, subject matter and cause; it is generally obligatory in whatever form it may have been entered into.[23] | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The verbal contract of sale between Eugenia and Concepcion did not violate the provisions of the Statute of Frauds that a contract for the sale of real property shall be unenforceable unless the contract or some note or memorandum of the sale is in writing and subscribed by the party charged or his agent.[9] When a verbal contract has been completed, executed or partially consummated, as in this case, its enforceability will not be barred by the Statute of Frauds, which applies only to an executory agreement.[10] Thus, where one party has performed his obligation, oral evidence will be admitted to prove the agreement.[11] | |||||
|
2004-09-09 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| … '(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things in action, at a price not less than five hundred pesos, unless the buyer accepts and receives part of such goods and chattels, or the evidences, or some of them, of such things in action, or pay at the time some part of the purchase money: but when a sale is made by auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his sales book, at the time of the sale, of the amount and kind of property sold, terms of sale, price, names of the purchasers and person on whose account the sale is made, it is a sufficient memorandum; …'" This is so because the provision applies only to executory, and not to completed, executed or partially executed contracts.[42] In this case, the contract of sale had been partially executed by the parties, with the transfer of the possession of the property to the respondent and the partial payments made by the latter of the purchase price thereof. | |||||
|
2004-08-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Under the doctrine of partial performance recognized in this jurisdiction, the objection to the oral character of a trust may be overcome or removed where there has been partial performance of the terms of the trust as to raise an equity in the promisee.[52] A trustee may perform the provisions of the trust, and if he does, the beneficiary is protected in benefits that he has received from such performance.[53] Thus, when a verbal contract has been completed, executed or partially consummated, its enforceability will not be barred by the Statute of Frauds, which applies only to an executory agreement.[54] Noteworthy, despite the compraventas transferring the lands in his name, Jose unfailingly gave his siblings their share of the produce of the lands. Furthermore, not only did he fail to repudiate the trust, he also assured his co-heirs that it was the inconvenience of partitioning that kept him from transferring the shares of his siblings to them. Accordingly, with respect to the lands covered by Expediente Nos. 241 and 4449, an express trust exists with Jose Ringor as trustee in favor of all the heirs of Jacobo Ringor. As far as prescription or laches are concerned, they pose no hindrance or limitation to the enforcement of an express trust.[55] | |||||
|
2003-07-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As correctly found by the appellate court, the occupation and construction of the improvements made by petitioners on the disputed property are clear acts of ratification and enforcement. In other words, the erection of these structures on the subject lot indicates that the lease contract was already in effect. The Statute of Frauds applies only to executory and not completed, executed or partially executed contracts.[23] Thus, where as in this case, one party has performed his obligation, oral evidence will be admitted to prove the agreement.[24] Furthermore, as can be gleaned from Exhibit "B"[25] of respondents, the amount of P20,000.00 received on April 21, 1989 was apparently for the rent of a stall. Indeed, the said document expressly states that it is a receipt for rentals. Petitioners can not now say that the said receipt is proof of an alleged down payment of the subject lot. Moreover, while there was testimony to the effect that the balance of P60,000.00 from the alleged purchase price of P80,000.00 was allegedly paid on July 3, 1989, the receipt therefore was never presented despite an earlier reservation to do so. | |||||
|
2002-01-23 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Clearly then, no privity of contract exists between petitioners and private respondents. As a general rule, a contract is a meeting of minds between two persons.[23] The Civil Code upholds the spirit over the form; thus, it deems an agreement to exist, provided the essential requisites are present. A contract is upheld as long as there is proof of consent, subject matter and cause. Moreover, it is generally obligatory in whatever form it may have been entered into. From the moment there is a meeting of minds between the parties, it is perfected.[24] | |||||