Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    Yuvienco V Dacuycuy

    Uploaded by

    nadgb
    The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint of private respondents for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell real property. The petitioners argued that there was no enforceable contract under the Statute of Frauds as the terms of payment in the prepared contract varied from the respondents' understanding and the contract was never signed. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the complaint did not state a cause of action and the claim was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as there was no signed writing setting forth agreement on payment in installments as alleged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Yuvienco V Dacuycuy

    Uploaded by

    nadgb
    91 views2 pages
    The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint of private respondents for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell real property. The petitioners argued that there was no enforceable contract under the Statute of Frauds as the terms of payment in the prepared contract varied from the respondents' understanding and the contract was never signed. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the complaint did not state a cause of action and the claim was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as there was no signed writing setting forth agreement on payment in installments as alleged.

    Original Description:

    Oblicon

    Original Title

    Yuvienco v Dacuycuy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint of private respondents for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell real property. The petitioners argued that there was no enforceable contract under the Statute of Frauds as the terms of payment in the prepared contract varied from the respondents' understanding and the contract was never signed. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the complaint did not state a cause of action and the claim was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as there was no signed writing setting forth agreement on payment in installments as alleged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    91 views2 pages

    Yuvienco V Dacuycuy

    Uploaded by

    nadgb
    The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint of private respondents for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell real property. The petitioners argued that there was no enforceable contract under the Statute of Frauds as the terms of payment in the prepared contract varied from the respondents' understanding and the contract was never signed. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the complaint did not state a cause of action and the claim was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as there was no signed writing setting forth agreement on payment in installments as alleged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    YUVIENCO v.

    DACUYCUY
    GR No. L-55048, May 27, 1981
    PONENTE: BARREDO, J.

    FACTS:
    The respondent judge denied the motion filed by petitioners to dismiss the complaint of private
    respondents for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale of real property, the said
    motion being based on the grounds that the respondents' complaint states no cause of action
    and/or that the claim alleged therein is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The theory
    of petitioners is that while it is true that they did express willingness to sell to private
    respondents the subject property for P6.5 million provided the latter made known their own
    decision to buy it not later than July 31, 1978, the respondents' reply that they were agreeable
    was not absolute, so much so that when ultimately petitioners' representative went to Cebu City
    with a prepared and duly signed contract for the purpose of perfecting and consummating the
    transaction, respondents and said representative found variance between the terms of payment
    stipulated in the prepared document and what respondents had in mind, hence the bankdraft
    which respondents were delivering to petitioners' representative was returned and the
    document remained unsigned by respondents.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the amended complaint does not state a cause of action and the claim on which
    the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.

    RULING:
    The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners as there is indeed a grave abuse of discretion
    warranting the special civil actions committed by the respondent judge to properly apply the
    laws on perfection of contracts in relation to the Statute of Frauds. The claim of the respondents
    that petitioners have unjustifiably refused to proceed with the sale to them of the property in
    question is unenforceable. It is nowhere alleged in said paragraphs 8 to 12 of the complaint that
    there is any writing or memorandum, much less a duly signed agreement to the effect that the
    price of P6.5 million fixed by petitioners for the real property herein involved was agreed to be
    paid not in cash but in installments as alleged by respondents. The Court held that in any sale of
    real property on installments, the Statute of Frauds must be read together with the perfection
    requirements of Article 1475 of the Civil Code and must be understood and applied in the sense
    that the idea of payment on installments must be in the requisite of a note or memorandum
    therein contemplated.

    You might also like