Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case Digest No. 3: Abrenica vs. Gonda

    Uploaded by

    Alexander Josh Fonseca
    113 views4 pages
    This case digest discusses two cases: 1) Abrenica vs. Gonda, where the plaintiff sued to recover two parcels of land sold to the defendant under a verbal right of repurchase agreement for seven years. The court upheld the agreement since the defendant failed to timely object to oral evidence proving the contract. 2) Bumanlag vs. Alzate, where a lawyer signed a compromise agreement without client authorization. The court found the agreement was not void but voidable and could be ratified by the client, according to the Civil Code.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Unforceable Contracts

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case digest discusses two cases: 1) Abrenica vs. Gonda, where the plaintiff sued to recover two parcels of land sold to the defendant under a verbal right of repurchase agreement for seven years. The court upheld the agreement since the defendant failed to timely object to oral evidence proving the contract. 2) Bumanlag vs. Alzate, where a lawyer signed a compromise agreement without client authorization. The court found the agreement was not void but voidable and could be ratified by the client, according to the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    113 views4 pages

    Case Digest No. 3: Abrenica vs. Gonda

    Uploaded by

    Alexander Josh Fonseca
    This case digest discusses two cases: 1) Abrenica vs. Gonda, where the plaintiff sued to recover two parcels of land sold to the defendant under a verbal right of repurchase agreement for seven years. The court upheld the agreement since the defendant failed to timely object to oral evidence proving the contract. 2) Bumanlag vs. Alzate, where a lawyer signed a compromise agreement without client authorization. The court found the agreement was not void but voidable and could be ratified by the client, according to the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    CASE DIGEST NO.

    Abrenica vs. Gonda


    August, 1916

    CONTENT

    GALO ABRENICA, plaintiff-appellee,

    vs.

    MANUEL GONDA and MARCELO DE GARCIA, defendants-appellees.

    Marcelo Caringal for appellants.


    Ramon Diokno for appellee.

    The Facts

    This case was brought by the plaintiff to compel the defendants to return the two parcels of
    land described in the complaint which he claimed were sold to the defendants under the right
    of repurchase for seven years and for the sum of 75Php. Further, the plaintiff alleged that the
    defendant refused to deliver the same when, upon the expiration of the period, mentioned,
    he is entitled to redeem the subject parcels of land upon the payment of the amount agreed
    upon.

    However, the plaintiff stated that the agreement for the sale with right of repurchase was
    done verbally between him and Gonda (one of the defendants). When he was placed on the
    stand as a witness, he testified at length and answered all the questions asked by his lawyer
    regarding the said agreement/contract, including its details, the persons who witnessed it,
    the place it was made, and the various other circumstances connected with its execution.
    The defendant’s counsel failed to raise an objection to the examination. The defendant’s
    lawyer also challenged one of the questions as leading and claimed another question was
    irrelevant. Moreover, he only moved to strike out all of the testimony and statements given
    by the plaintiff when the examination was already terminated on the ground that the period
    for the fulfillment of the contract exceeded one year and that it could not be proven except
    by means of a written instrument. The lawyer also did a cross examination and asked
    several questions relative to the plaintiff’s ownership of the parcels of land.

    Issue

    Whether the two parcels of land were sold under the right of repurchase by the plaintiff to the
    defendant.

    7
    Held

    Yes. The two parcels of land were sold under the right of repurchase by the plaintiff to the
    defendant with the seven-year term for 75 php. Moreover, the fact that the defendants’
    counsel asked various cross-questions, both of the plaintiff and of the other witness, in
    connection with the answers given by them in their direct examination, with respect to
    particulars concerning the contract, implies a waiver on his part to have the evidence
    stricken out.

    No timely objection or protest was made to the admission of the testimony of the plaintiff with
    respect to the contract; and as the motion to strike out said evidence came to late; and,
    furthermore, as the defendants themselves, by the cross- questions put by their counsel for
    the witnesses in respect to said contract, tacitly waived their right to have it stricken out, that
    evidence, therefore, cannot be considered either inadmissible or illegal.

    The plaintiff made use of his right to recover the property within the period stipulated by the
    contract and which did not exceed ten years, and as he deposited with the clerk of the court
    the sum of P75, the price of the purchase, in due time, the defendant is not entitled to
    oppose the recovery, and the said parcels of land must be delivered to the plaintiff, even
    though they be in the possession of the other defendant, Marcelino de Garcia, to whom they
    were sold by his codefendant Gonda, for the latter could not sell them to De Gracia except
    under the condition that they could be repurchased by the plaintiff within the said period of
    seven years.

    REFLECTION / CONCLUSION:

    This agreement, though verbally made is ratified by the failure of the defendant’s
    party to object to the presentation of oral evidence to prove the same as expressed on
    Article 1405 of the New Civil Code.

    RECOMMENDATION:

    The party should promptly object to the presentation of the witness once it becomes
    apparent that no evidence in writing could be presented to prove the contract. The objection
    must be invoked during the “offer of the testimony” of the witness or a motion to dismiss may
    be filed before answer to the complaint is filed.

    REFERENCE:

    Retrieved from www.lspuoblicon2015.wordpress.com

    8
    CASE DIGEST NO. 4

    Bumanlag vs. Alzate


    September, 1986

    CONTENT

    FELICIANA BUMANLAG ad FLAVIANO BUMANLAG, petitioners,

    vs.

    HON. ANACLETO B. ALZATE as Presiding Judge, Branch II, Court of first Instance of
    Tarlac, TOMASA BUMANLAG, and SILVINO ESPUGADO, respondents.

    Emilio D. Castellanes for petitioners.


    Lauro O. Samson for respondents.

    The Facts

    On the first case which entitled Bumanlag, et. al. v. Bumanlag, et. al. the petitioner sued
    herein the private respondents for partition of the lots inherited by both parties from their
    deceased father, respondents however moved to dismiss on the ground that some years
    before a final and executory judgment (based on a compromise agreement) involving the
    same parties, same subject matter, and same causes of action had already been rendered
    by a court of competent jurisdiction and that therefore the doctrine of res judicata clearly bars
    the present case; petitioners contend that said judgment is void because the compromise
    agreement had been signed in their behalf by their lawyer who had not been authorized by
    them to enter into such agreement, consequently there can be no res judicata.

    Issue

    Whether or not the lawyer who signed a compromised agreement on behalf of his client
    without the consent of the latter is void?

    Held

    No, the compromise is not void but only unenforceable and may therefore be ratified by the
    client expressly or impliedly which stated on “Art. 1403 --- The following contracts are
    unenforceable, unless they are ratified: 1. Those entered into in the name of another person

    9
    by one who has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond
    his powers.”

    REFLECTION / CONCLUSION:

    A statute of frauds does not of itself render a contract void. The statute makes certain
    contracts “voidable” by one of the parties, in the event that the party does not wish to follow
    through on the agreement. A contract that is “void” cannot be enforced. A contract that is
    “voidable” remains valid unless one of the parties chooses to void the contract.

    RECOMMENDATION:

    Unauthorized contracts are susceptible to ratification.

    REFERENCE:

    Retrieved from www.lspuoblicon2015.wordpress.com

    10

    You might also like