G.R. No.

1318, April 12, 1904

PRISCA NAVAL ET AL. vs. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ ET AL.

Facts:
Don Jorge Enriquez, as heir of his deceased parents, Antonio Enriquez and Doña Ciriaca
Villanueva, whose estates were at that time still undistributed, by public instrument sold to Don
Victoriano Reyes his interest in both estates, equivalent to a tenth part thereof. By another
instrument executed, Don Enrique Barrera, Don Victoriano Reyes sold to Doña Carmen de la
Cavada his interest in the estate of Don Antonio Enriquez and Doña Ciriaca Villanueva, which
he had acquired from Don Jorge Enriquez. The purchaser, Doña Carmen, was the wife of Don
Francisco Enriquez, who was the executor and administrator of the testamentary estate of Don
Antonio Enriquez at the dates of the execution of the two mentioned. The plaintiffs demand that
these deeds be declared null and void, as well as the contracts evidenced thereby, apparently
solely so far as they refer to the estate of Don Antonio Enriquez, no mention being made of the
estate of Doña Ciriaca Villanueva in the complaint. This relief is prayed for upon the grounds
that the deeds in question were consummated and were executed for the purpose of deceiving
and defrauding Don Jorge Enriquez and his family, and such executor Don Francisco Enriquez
was unable to acquire by his own act or that of any intermediary the said hereditary portion of
Don Jorge Enriquez under the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 1459 of the Civil Code.

Issue:
Whether or not the deeds executed are null and void.

Held:
No. The date of those contracts down to the death of Jorge Enriquez, which occurred July 6,
1891, more than five year had passed and more than fifteen before the filing of the complaint on
January 9, 1902, nothing having been done in the meantime on the part of the plaintiffs or the
person under whom they claim to interrupt the running of the statute. The action of nullity only
lasts four years, counted from the date of the consummation of the contract, when the action is
based, as in this case, upon the absence of consideration. (Art. 1301 of the Civil Code.) The
contract of sale is consummated by the delivery of the purchase money and of the thing
sold.(Art. 1462, par. 2, Civil Code.)
Article 1464 provides that "With respect to incorporeal property, the provisions of par. 2 of Art.
1462 shall govern." In the deeds of sale executed by Victoriano Reyes in favor of Doña Carmen
de la Cavada, in consequence he (the vendor) by virtue of this title cedes and conveys all rights
which he has or may have to the part of the inheritance which is the object of this sale may
exercise all the acts of ownership corresponding to her right, to which end by means of the
delivery of this instrument and of his other title deeds he makes the transfer necessary to
consummate the contract, which upon his part he declares to be perfect and consummated from
this date.

G.R. No. L-39720, April 4, 1934

In re Intestate of the deceased Mauricia de Guzman.
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., vs. TRINIDAD MACTAL.

Facts:
Trinidad Mactal was appointed as the administratrix of the intestate estate of Mauricia de
Guzman. Mactal prayed that she be allowed to sell the only parcel of land belonging to the
estate, so she can pay her debts. The court authorized Mactal to sell the land. Mactal
proceeded to sell it to Silverio Choco. Mactal then paid the approved claims against the estate,
which were all made after the sale of the parcel of land in favor of Choco. Choco then sold the
property two years later, to the spouses Pio Villar and Trinidad Mactal, for P4,500. Villar and
Trinidad Mactal mortgaged the land to PNB for the same amount.

Issue:
Whether or not the sale in question should be annulled because it falls under the prohibition
under article 1459 of the Civil Code, which enumerates persons who cannot take by purchase
like agents and executors.

Held:
The proofs in this case do not substantiate this claim of the appellants. In order to bring the sale
in this case within the part of article 1459, quoted above, it is essential that the proof submitted
establish some agreement between Silverio Choco and Trinidad Mactal to the effect that Choco
should buy the property for the benefit of Mactal. If there was no such agreement, either
express or implied, then the sale can not be set aside. The evidence before this court does not
establish such agreement. Realty may be sold or encumbered. — When there is no personal
estate of the deceased or when, though there be such, its sale would redound to the detriment
of the interests of the participants in the estate and the deceased has left no testamentary
disposition for the payment of his debts and charges of administration, the court, on application
of the executor or administrator, and on written notice to the heirs, devisees, and other persons
interested, may grant him a license to sell, mortgage, or otherwise encumber for that purpose
real estate, if it clearly appears that such sale, mortgaging or encumbrance would be beneficial
to the persons interested and will not defeat any devise of land; in which case the assent of the
devisee shall be required.

G.R. No. L-23351, March 13, 1968

CIRILO PAREDES, vs. JOSE L. ESPINO.

Facts:
Espino “had entered into the sale” to Paredes a parcel of land and the deal was closed by letter
and telegram. Espino refused to execute the deed of sale despite the willingness of Paredes to
pay the price. Paredes filed an action for specific performance and damages against Espino.
Espino contended that the contract was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

Issue:
WON the contract is barred by the Statute of Frauds and unenforceable?

Held:
Under Article 1403 of Civil Code, Statute of Frauds does not require that the contract itself be in
writing. It is clear that a written note or memorandum make the verbal agreement enforceable.
In this case, the deal had been closed by letter and telegram. Therefore, the contract of sale is
not under the Statute of Frauds.

G.R. No. L-24384, September 28, 1967

MARGARITA IÑIGO, vs. ESTATE OF ADRIANA MALOTO, GREGORIO L. LIRA.

Facts:
Inigo paid Maloto the purchase price for the house and lot which is the object of contract of sale.
No deed of sale was executed nor receipt printed. Inigo filed suit to compel the heirs of Maloto
to execute the deed of sale as she was rejected in her demands.

Issue:
WON the contract of sale is unenforceable?

Held:
Under the civil code, a verbal agreement of sale is unenforceable unless ratified. However, this
rule is only applicable to fully executory contracts not to contracts which are totally or practically
performed. In this case, Inigo paid the purchase price and performed acts of ownership over the
property (house and lot). These shows that the contract was already consummated. Therefore,
the contract of sale is not within the ambit of statute of frauds and it does not matter whether the
receipt or the sale was in writing.

G.R. No. 20732, September 26, 1924

C. W. ROSENSTOCK, as administrator of the estate of H. W. ELSER, vs.
EDWIN BURKE, THE COOPER COMPANY.

Facts:
Defendant wrote a letter to the offeror: "In connection with the yacht Bronzewing, I am in
position and am willing to entertain the purchase of it under the following terms x x x." Plaintiff
accepted all terms.

Issue:
Is the offer to purchase the yacht absolute?

Held:
NO. The offer was not definite or certain. "To convey the idea of resolution to purchase, a man
of ordinary intelligence and common culture would use these clear and simple words: `I offer to
purchase. '`I want to purchase.' `I am in position to purchase!' It must be presumed that a man
in his transaction in good faith uses the best means of expressing his mind that his intelligence
and culture so permit as to convey and exteriorize his will faithfully and unequivocally. The word
`entertain applied to an act does not mean the resolution to perform said act, but simply a
position to deliberate for deciding to perform said act. It was not a definite or certain offer, but a
mere invitation to a proposal being made to him, which might be accepted by him or not."