YUVIENCO v.

DACUYCUY
GR No. L-55048, May 27, 1981
PONENTE: BARREDO, J.

FACTS:
The respondent judge denied the motion filed by petitioners to dismiss the complaint of private
respondents for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale of real property, the said
motion being based on the grounds that the respondents' complaint states no cause of action
and/or that the claim alleged therein is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The theory
of petitioners is that while it is true that they did express willingness to sell to private
respondents the subject property for P6.5 million provided the latter made known their own
decision to buy it not later than July 31, 1978, the respondents' reply that they were agreeable
was not absolute, so much so that when ultimately petitioners' representative went to Cebu City
with a prepared and duly signed contract for the purpose of perfecting and consummating the
transaction, respondents and said representative found variance between the terms of payment
stipulated in the prepared document and what respondents had in mind, hence the bankdraft
which respondents were delivering to petitioners' representative was returned and the
document remained unsigned by respondents.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the amended complaint does not state a cause of action and the claim on which
the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.

RULING:
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners as there is indeed a grave abuse of discretion
warranting the special civil actions committed by the respondent judge to properly apply the
laws on perfection of contracts in relation to the Statute of Frauds. The claim of the respondents
that petitioners have unjustifiably refused to proceed with the sale to them of the property in
question is unenforceable. It is nowhere alleged in said paragraphs 8 to 12 of the complaint that
there is any writing or memorandum, much less a duly signed agreement to the effect that the
price of P6.5 million fixed by petitioners for the real property herein involved was agreed to be
paid not in cash but in installments as alleged by respondents. The Court held that in any sale of
real property on installments, the Statute of Frauds must be read together with the perfection
requirements of Article 1475 of the Civil Code and 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.