UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Sales

Dizon (E2024) Professor Chua

Paredes v. Espino
G.R. No. L-23351 – March 13, 1968
En banc | Reyes, J.B.L., J.
Topic: Formation of the Contract of Sales -> Form Important for Enforceability -> Statute of Frauds

Article/s Invoked:
Art. 1403, CC. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:

(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following
cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or
memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore,
of the agreement cannot be received without the writing or a secondary evidence of its contents:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property or
of an interest therein.

Parties: Cirilo Paredes; plaintiff-appellant; Jose L. Espino, defendant-appellee.

Case Summary: Paredes filed a complaint for specific performance and damages after Espino refused to sell
the property that was subject of the sale. The sale was closed by letter and telegram, but the actual execution
and payment were deferred until Espino’s arrival in Puerto Princesa. However, Espino refused to execute the
deed of sale, and in response to the complaint said that Paredes had no cause of action because the contract
was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. SC ruled in Paredes’s favor.

Doctrine: The Statute of Frauds does not require that the contract itself be in writing. Art. 1403(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.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Espino had entered into a sale with Paredes for a lot of Puerto Princesa Cadastre at P4.00/sqm, which was
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 Espino at Puerto Princesa. Upon arrival, Espino refused to execute the deed of sale
although Paredes was able and willing to pay, and continued to refuse despite written demands by Paredes.
As a result, Paredes lost expected profits from the sale and caused mental anguish and suffering, for which
reason he filed an action to compel Espino for specific performance and pay damages. CFI-Palawan dismissed
the complaint, stating that there being no written contract, it cannot be enforced by virtue of the Statute of
Frauds.

ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

W/N enforcement of the contract is barred by the Statute of Frauds—NO.
• The Statute of Frauds does not require that the contract itself be in writing. Art. 1403(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.
• In this case, the complaint pleads that “the deal had been closed by letter and telegram”, and the letter
was the one copy appended to Paredes’s opposition to the motion to dismiss. This letter constitutes
and adequate memorandum of the transaction [signed by Espino, refers to the property sold, gives
its area and the purchase price payable in cash]. Since we have all the essential terms of the contract,
they satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds.
• Espino’s argument that the authenticity of the letters has not been established, but this is not necessary
for the purpose of showing prima facie that the contract is enforceable. The authenticity of the writing
need not be established until the trial is held. Paredes’s cause of action is established from the sufficient
memorandum.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Sales
Dizon (E2024) Professor Chua

RULING
Appealed order set aside. Case remanded to the Court of origin for trial and decision.

NOTES