Second. The parole evidence rule is applicable. While the application thereof presupposes the existence of a valid agreement, the innominate contract between the parties has been directly put in issue by the respondents. Verily, the failure of the deed of sale to express the true intent and agreement of the parties supports the application of the paroleevidence rule.[22]
Contrary to petitioners' contention, the absence of Bernabe's signature in the 1978 deed of sale is not necessarily conclusive of his dissent or opposition to the effected arrangement. As previously adverted to, the agreement had multiple causes or consideration, apart from the P15,000.00 stated in the deed of sale. To repeat, the agreement between the parties had both an onerous and a remunerative cause. Also worthy of note is the moral consideration for the agreement given the relationship between the parties.
Third. We agree with both the lower and the appellate courts that the Statute of Frauds is not applicable to the instant case.
The general rule is that contracts are valid in whatever form they may be.[23] One exception thereto is the Statute of Frauds which requires a written instrument for the enforceability of a contract.[24] However, jurisprudence dictates that the Statute of Frauds only applies to executory, not to completed, executed, or partially consummated, contracts.[25]
In the case at bench, we find that all requisites for a valid contract are present, specifically: (1) consent of the parties; (2) object or subject matter, comprised of the parties' respective shares in the subject lot; and (3) the consideration, over and above the P15,000.00 stipulated price. We note that the agreement between the parties had long been consummated and completed. In fact, the agreement clearly contemplated immediate execution by the parties. More importantly, the parties, including petitioner Fe, ratified the agreement by the acceptance of benefits thereunder.[26]
Contrary to petitioners' contention, the absence of Bernabe's signature in the 1978 deed of sale is not necessarily conclusive of his dissent or opposition to the effected arrangement. As previously adverted to, the agreement had multiple causes or consideration, apart from the P15,000.00 stated in the deed of sale. To repeat, the agreement between the parties had both an onerous and a remunerative cause. Also worthy of note is the moral consideration for the agreement given the relationship between the parties.
Third. We agree with both the lower and the appellate courts that the Statute of Frauds is not applicable to the instant case.
The general rule is that contracts are valid in whatever form they may be.[23] One exception thereto is the Statute of Frauds which requires a written instrument for the enforceability of a contract.[24] However, jurisprudence dictates that the Statute of Frauds only applies to executory, not to completed, executed, or partially consummated, contracts.[25]
In the case at bench, we find that all requisites for a valid contract are present, specifically: (1) consent of the parties; (2) object or subject matter, comprised of the parties' respective shares in the subject lot; and (3) the consideration, over and above the P15,000.00 stipulated price. We note that the agreement between the parties had long been consummated and completed. In fact, the agreement clearly contemplated immediate execution by the parties. More importantly, the parties, including petitioner Fe, ratified the agreement by the acceptance of benefits thereunder.[26]
No comments:
Post a Comment