Goli-Cruz (130183)

ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO, RAMON INFANTE, and EMMA INFANTE

G.R. No. L-11231 | May 12, 1958
Topic: Statute of Frauds (Article 1405)
FACTS:
Carbonnel alleges that she purchased from Jose Poncio a parcel of land located in San Juan Del
Monte, Rizal for the amount of Php 9.50. Carbonnel paid Php 247. 26 on the account of the price and
assumed Poncio’s obligation with the Republic Savings Bank amounting to Php 1,177. 48. This is with the
understanding that the balance would be payable upon execution of the Deed of Conveyance. One of the
conditions of the sale was that Poncio would continue staying on the land for a year, however, the defendant
refuses to execute the Deed of Sale despite Carbonnel’s multiple demands. In addition to this, Poncio also
had offered the same property to the Infante’s, who were aware of the first sale to Carbonnel.
Poncio contends that the allegations of Carbonnel are untrue. He contends that he has no knowledge
sufficient to form the belief that Carbonnel is entitled to the land. He alleges that he turned down
Carbonnel’s offer to buy his land several times.
Now, Carbonnel seeks that she be declared to be the owner of the land and that the sale to the
Infante’s be annulled. However, Poncio et. al allege that Carbonnel’s claim is unenforceable under the
Statute of Frauds on the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action. Hence, this case at bar.
ISSUE:
Whether the Statute of Frauds is applicable to Carbonnel and Poncio’s contract regarding the parcel
of land in San Juan Del Monte
RULING:
The petition was set aside on the ground that the Court wants to hear further evidence and
testimonies from Carbonnel. However, it was explained that the Civil Code recognizes Statute of Frauds
only in executory contracts and not in contracts that are totally or partially performed. The reason for this
is explained by Chief Justice Moran, “In executory contracts there is a wide field for fraud because unless
they be in writing there is no palpable evidence of the intention of the contracting parties. The statute has
precisely been enacted to prevent fraud”. Hence, if a contract was totally or partially performed, the
exclusion of parol evidence would promote fraud or bad faith thus it would enable the defendant to keep
the benefits already derived by him from the transaction in litigation at the same time evade obligations
assumed by him. Moreover, the party concerned that had pleaded partial performance is entitled to a
reasonable chance to establish parol evidence upon his allegations. Here, the Court had ruled that Carbonnel
must have the opportunity to introduce parol evidence that will support her claim against the defendants.

DISPOSITIVE: Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby set aside, and let this case be remanded to
the lower court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision, with the costs of this instance
against defendants-appellees. It is so ordered.