YUVIENCO v. DACUYCUY, G.R. No.

L-55048, May 27, 1981

ART. 1403 - UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACT

FACTS:
Petitioner seeks to declare void for being in grave abuse of discretion the orders
of respondent judge which 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. According to Petitioners the complaint states no cause of action
and/or that the claim alleged therein is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
Petitioners alleged that they were willing to sell to private respondents the subject
property for P6,500,000 provided the latter made known their own decision to buy it not
later than July 31, 1978. When petitioners' representative went to Cebu City to perfect
and consummat the sale, respondents refused to sign due to a variance between the
terms of payment stipulated in the document and what respondents had in mind.
Respondents allege that the petitioners without giving notice to plaintiffs, changed the
mode of payment with respect to the balance of P4,500,000.00 by imposing upon
plaintiffs to pay same amount within thirty (30) days from execution of the contract
instead of the former ninety (90) days.

ISSUE:
1. Do the respondents have a casue of action?
2. Is the respondents’ claim unenforceable under the statute of frauds?

HELD:
1. Yes, they have a cause of action. Article 1319 of the Civil Code provides that
“Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing
and the cause which are constitute the contract. The offer must be certain the
acceptance absolute.” In the telegrams between the parties, the word “negotiate” was
used, which negates the idea that respondents' acceptance of petitioners' offer was the
"absolute" one that Article 1319 above-quoted requires. "to negotiate" is practically the
opposite of the Idea that an agreement has been reached. Notwithstanding this, the
respondents still have a cause of action considering that the agreement between the
parties which was that of selling the property for P6.5 M, by paving P2 M down and the
balance in 90 days, was violated when this was changed to 30 days in the final written
draft of the contract.
2. Yes, their claim is unenforceable under the statute of frauds.Due to the lack of
evidence as to an express statement regarding the 90 day payment of the balance, the
necessary conclusion is that the parties had agreed to it orally. Thus there was a
perfected agreement of purchase and sale between them and petitioners, and such oral
contract comes under Article 1403, No. 2(e) of the Civil Code.
 The Statute of Frauds read together with the perfection requirements of Article
1475 of the Civil Code 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. Under the Statute of Frauds, the contents of the note or memorandum,
merely indicative for an adequate understanding of all the essential elements of the
entire agreement, may be said to be the contract itself, except as to the form.
Furthermore, a motion to dismiss invoking the Statute of Frauds may be filed even if the
absence of compliance does not appear an the face of the complaint. Such absence
may be the subject of proof in the motion stage of the proceedings.