PNB vs.

PVO

An alleged agreement by PNB and PVO for PNB to provide unlimited capital assistance to PVO, which
at that time was in the brink of bankruptcy, was to be construed as rendering of services not to be
performed within a year from the making of the contract and therefore covered by the Statute of
Frauds. And in the instant case, there was no documentary evidence of the said agreement. Mr.
Whitaker of PVO alleged that he had already fully performed his obligation in the alleged agreement
by providing mortgage to the promised capital assistance by the General Manager of PNB. In such
case, oral evidence is admissible to prove that said agreement actually exists. PNB presented Minutes
of the meeting of its BOD and what it showed was the conferment by the Board to the General
Manager the authority to finance the operation of PVO, but he must still secure the approval of the
Board for the necessary credits from time to time, and that the Bank authorized advances to PVO to
the extent of not more than P1,000,000. Testimonies of Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Gibbs, creditors of PVO,
were also presented and they said that they relied upon the statement of the PNB’s General Manager
that his Bank may still continue to finance PVO. The Court said that these only disclosed of the Bank’s
mere interest to provide capital assistance and not the consent by the BOD of PNB to provide
unlimited backing to PVO. There was no indication that the BOD ever consented to an agreement for
practically unlimited backing of PVO or that it had ratified any such promise made by its General
Manager.
There being no valid agreement, there is no basis from which the Statute of Frauds and doctrine of
partial or total performance will apply. Hence, PVO cannot petition for the enforcement of obligation
or ask for damages.

CARBONNEL vs. PONCIO

- A contract of sale of land which is assailed to be unenforceable under the Statute of
Frauds, there being no deed of sale executed.

The Statute of Frauds is applicable only to executory oral contracts and if one of the parties alleges
partial performance, he is given opportunity to establish the existence of the contract as well as to
prove the partial performance, and in such cases, oral evidence may be admitted. In the instant case,
there being no deed of sale and plaintiff Carbonnel, the buyer, was alleging that she already made
partial payment, she was given the opportunity to present oral evidence to prove such contract.
The introduction by plaintiff Carbonnel of a witness, who happens to be acquainted with Poncio and
who testified that the purported contract of sale of land was drafted by him and was also signed by
the defendant Poncio, is a proof of the existence of such contract. Moreover, the notation of the sum
of money in the defendant Poncio’s passbook, which the plaintiff claims was her partial payment of
the purchase price, is a support of plaintiff’s allegation of partial performance in the contract of sale.
Since Defendant Poncio did not contradict the testimony of the witness presented by Carbonnel and
did not clearly establish that the sum paid by Carbonnel is not earnest money or partial payment of
the land, this is taken out of the applicability of the Statute of Frauds. It was clear that there was
failure to object to the oral evidence proving the existence of such contract as well as acceptance of
benefits in the form of the partial payment received by Poncio, and therefore, the contract is deemed
ratified.

FIRST PHIL INT’L BANK vs. CA

-A contract of sale of land which is assailed to be unenforceable due to lack of documentary
evidence to prove that the parties have reached an agreement as to the price of the land.

There was a contention that the contract of sale of land entered into by Janolo’s group and First Phil
Int’l Bank was unenforceable there being no note or memorandum of the verbal offer of Luis Co or
Rivera of FPIB to sell the land at 5.5M as well as the acceptance of such offer by Janolo’s group. First
Phil Int’l Bank’s letters of offer to sell the land and the private respondents Demetria and Janolo’s
acceptance of the price through a letter also, although these are not formal contracts of sale, are clear
embodiments of the fact that a contract of sale was perfected between the parties. Specifically, the
bank’s letter that the final price of the land was 5.5M and Janolo’s letter of acceptance of the 5.5M
price constituted a sufficient memorandum of a perfected contract of sale. These letters are
considered sufficient memorandum since they include the names of the parties, the terms and
conditions of the contract, the price and a description of the property as the object of the contract.

The Court said that even assuming arguendo that the verbal offer of Janolo to purchase the land at
4.5M constituted a new offer, Janolo and Demetria failed to object to oral testimony of Luis Co and
Rivera, proving the Bank’s counter-offer or the “revived offer” of 5.5M. They were silent as to the
5.5M counter-offer the whole time during the presentation of oral evidence which makes it binding
upon Janolo and Demetria.