Yuvienco v. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-55048, May 27, 1981 Digest

SUGA SOTTO YUVIENCO, BRITANIA SOTTO, and MARCELINO SOTTO, Petitioners, v. HON.
AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, Judge of the CFI of Leyte, DELY RODRIGUEZ, FELIPE ANG CRUZ,
CONSTANCIA NOGAR, MANUEL GO, INOCENTES DIME, WILLY JULIO, JAIME YU, OSCAR DY, DY
CHIU SENG, BENITO YOUNG, FERNANDO YU, SEBASTIAN YU, CARLOS UY, HOC CHUAN and MANUEL
DY, Respondents.
Facts:
Petitioners are owners of a parcel of land and the building existing thereon,
expressed through their representative who wrote a letter to private respondents,
the tenants therein, their willingness to sell their property to them for 6.5M.
Private respondents replied by telegram with the following words, "we agree to buy
proceed Tacloban to negotiate details." When petitioners’ representative arrived
with the prepared contract to purchase and to sell, private respondents found
variance between the terms of payment and what they had in mind, hence the
bankdraft being offered for payment was returned and the document remained unsigned
by the latter. Private respondents filed an action for specific performance in the
Court of First Instance of Leyte and petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds that the complaint states no cause of action and/or that
the claim alleged therein is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Respondent
judge ruled negatively; hence this petition.
On certiorari and prohibition, the Supreme Court ruled that the complaint does not
state a cause of action where the telegram-reply which is not an absolute
acceptance under Art. 1319 of the Civil Code does not show the existence of a
perfected contract of sale while the claim of private respondents for specific
performance of the terms of payment of an evidently oral contract involving the
"sale of real property" is unenforceable under Art. 1403, No. 2 (e) of the Civil
Code, otherwise known as the Statute of Frauds.
Impugned orders, set aside.
Absolute Acceptance of Offer: Respondents’ telegram which simply says "We agree to
buy property" does not necessarily connote acceptance of the price but instead
suggests that the details were to be subject of negotiation. That respondents were
all the time agreeable to buy the property may be conceded, but what impresses the
Supreme Court is that instead of "absolutely" accepting the "certain" offer — if
there was one — of the petitioners, they still insisted on further negotiation of
details.
In the sale of a Property, Payment in installments must be in writing to be

enforceable: In any sale of real property on installments, 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 note or memorandum need not be in one single
document or writing but the separate notes must, when put together, contain all the
requisites of a perfected contract of sale.
Issue: WON the contract of sale is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds; WON
petitioner adequately shown the existence of a perfected contract of sale between
petitioners and respondent.
RTC Decision: No, because the subject contract is supported by letters and
telegrams.
To take a contract for the sale of land out of the Statute of Frauds a mere note or
memorandum in writing subscribed by the vendor or his agent containing the names of
the parties and a summary statement of the terms of the sale either expressly or by
reference to something else is all that is required. The Statute does not require a
formal contract drawn up with technical exactness for the language of Par. 2 of
Art. 1403 of the Philippine Civil Code is ‘. . . an agreement . . . or some note or
memorandum thereof,’ thus recognizing a difference between the contract itself and
the written evidence which the statute requires (Berg v. Magdalena Estate, Inc., 92
Phil. 110; III Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 ed. p. 187). See also
Bautista’s Monograph on the Statute of Frauds in 21 SCRA p. 250.
-Art. 1319 of the Civil Code.
-Acceptance made by letter or telegram does not bind the offerer except from the
time it came to his knowledge. The contract, in such a case, is presumed to have
been entered into in the place where the offer was made.
-Meaning of “to negotiate.”

"to communicate or confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some
matter; meet with another so as to arrive through discussion at some kind of
agreement or compromise about something; — to arrange for or bring about through
conference or discussion; work at or arrive at or settle upon by meetings and
agreements or compromises —." Importantly, it must be borne in mind that Yao King
Ong’s telegram simply says "we agree to buy property." It does not necessarily
connote acceptance of the price but instead suggests that the details were to be
subject of negotiation.
-Failure of any meeting of the minds of the parties.

-No perfected contract of sale in the light of the exchange of letters of the
parties.
SC: Contract of sale unenforceable because there is no other note, memorandum or

writing which do not give birth to a contract of sale.
The foregoing disquisition of respondent judge misses at least two (2) juridical
substantive aspects of the Statute of Frauds insofar as sale of real property is
concerned. First, His Honor assumed that the requirement of perfection of such kind
of contract under Article 1475 of the Civil Code which provides that" (t)he
contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon
the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price", the Statute
would no longer apply as long as the total price or consideration is mentioned in
some note or memorandum and there is no need of any indication of the manner in
which such total price is to be paid.
RTC Decision set aside, amended complaint dismissed.

Yuvienco v. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-55048, May 27, 1981 Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yuvienco v. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-55048, May 27, 1981 Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yuvienco v. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-55048, May 27, 1981 Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUGA SOTTO YUVIENCO, BRITANIA SOTTO, and MARCELINO SOTTO, Petitioners, v. HON.

Impugned orders, set aside.

In the sale of a Property, Payment in installments must be in writing to be

-Art. 1319 of the Civil Code.

-Meaning of “to negotiate.”

-Failure of any meeting of the minds of the parties.

SC: Contract of sale unenforceable because there is no other note, memorandum or

You might also like