Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Failure To Object: ARTICLE 1405
Failure To Object: ARTICLE 1405
Contracts infringing the Statute of frauds, referred to in No. 2, article 1403 are ratified by the
failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or by the acceptance of
benefits under them.
Failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence. This case is equitably the same
with a waiver. Contracts that are infringed in the Statute of Frauds are ratified by the
failure to object to the presentation of parol evidence thus, it is enforceable.
Parol Evidence is any evidences either in the form of writing or oral which are not
present in the written contract.
Illustration:
The plaintiff forwarded a complaint to the defendant/s by which the former was claiming
back the parcel of land he sold to the defendant/s under a repurchase agreement within
a specified period. As the term expired, the defendant/s did not adhere to the terms
though the “repurchase agreement” was not explicitly mentioned in the contract.
Relative to the cross-examination, the plaintiff mentioned that the said agreement was
just agreed by the contracting parties verbally. If no objection and opposition were
made by the at the time when the agreement was made, therefore, the contract to
repurchase the parcel of land right in the dependant’s possession is enforceable.
Acceptance of Benefits under these contacts is equivalent to waiver or estoppel; only
applies to executor contracts. If the oral contract was reduced into writing by the party
charged, this exercise is called recognition. It is the express ratification of the contract
since the creditor of the payment of debt (assuming) is being enjoyed already by the
former in order to satisfy needs an daily important expenses.
Executory Contract means any stipulation or in written document that relates to the
transaction made by the contracting parties by which one is bound to give, to do or not
do on specified date and terms in exchange of economic benefits that the former will
receive.
ARTICLE 1406
When a contract is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds, and a public document is
necessary for its registration in the Registry of Deeds, the parties may avail themselves of the
right under article 1357.
The above provision is applicable if there are agreement in obedience to the Statutes of Frauds.
o As general rule, the party involved in a sale of real property made in oral contract
cannot compel the his or her contracting party to make the contract be in public
document for the purpose of registration because it is unenforceable, except, it was
ratified.
o Same thing applies when one is trying to execute a public document for a “donated”
realty if it is in private instrument since a donation is void as mentioned from Article
1356.
Illustration:
Miko sold a parcel of land to his friend worth 2,000,000 Php in a private instrument. His
friend paid the purchase price along with other supplemental cost relative to the transaction
and document needed for the transfer of title. With this, MIko’s friend has the right to ask Miko
to execute a public instrument as per the purpose of registration.
ARTICLE 1407
In a contract where both parties are incapable of giving consent, express or implied ratification
by the parent, or guardian, as the case may be, of one of the contracting parties shall give the
contract the same effect as if only one of them were incapacitated.
If ratification is made by the parents or guardians, as the case may be, of both contracting
parties, the contract shall be validated from the inception.
If only one parent of the contracting parties (assuming both were incapacitated) decided
to lead the ratification of the contract, there was still a chance that it would become
voidable if one of the parties involved in the contract regained his or her capacity.
One can regain capacity in the form of/when: the party reached legal age thus regained
capacity from being minor and regaining insanity from being insane before.
ARTICLE 1408
Illustration:
Mendoza sells a treadmill worth 500,00 Php to Lazada and the transaction was made orally.
Shoppee made a written contract for the performance of Lazada which is to pay the purchase
price of the equipment.
1) If Mendoza would like to recover the purchase price, Shoppee cannot question or assail
the contract between Mendoza and Lazada though the contract mentioned earlier is
unenforceable as provided by the Statutes of Frauds since Shoppee is s stranger to the
agreement initially made.
2) Even if Lazada ejected Shoppee out of the contract, still the latter was not entitled to
Statutes of Frauds to make use of it as a defense.
3) If Shoppee induces Mendoza to avoid the sale transaction of Mendoza and Lazada then
Mendoza got exposed to other client to proceed with the sell the treadmill, the former
shall pay the indemnity for the damages suffered by Lazada. Shoppee cannot use the
Statutes of Frauds as an excuse to pay for damages.