[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
536 views1 page

Orduna V Fuentebella

Antonita Orduña purchased a residential lot from Gabriel Sr. in installments but no deed of sale was executed. Orduña paid installments to Gabriel Sr. and later his son Gabriel Jr. Orduña introduced improvements and paid property taxes since 1979. However, the property was subject to further alienations and was eventually ceded to Fuentebilla Jr. When Fuentebilla demanded Orduña vacate, she filed a complaint. The courts dismissed due to the Statute of Frauds requiring contracts for land to be written. However, the Supreme Court held the Statute did not apply because the verbal contract was partially executed through Orduña's payments, withdrawing it from the Statute's purview

Uploaded by

mickeysdortega_41120
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
536 views1 page

Orduna V Fuentebella

Antonita Orduña purchased a residential lot from Gabriel Sr. in installments but no deed of sale was executed. Orduña paid installments to Gabriel Sr. and later his son Gabriel Jr. Orduña introduced improvements and paid property taxes since 1979. However, the property was subject to further alienations and was eventually ceded to Fuentebilla Jr. When Fuentebilla demanded Orduña vacate, she filed a complaint. The courts dismissed due to the Statute of Frauds requiring contracts for land to be written. However, the Supreme Court held the Statute did not apply because the verbal contract was partially executed through Orduña's payments, withdrawing it from the Statute's purview

Uploaded by

mickeysdortega_41120
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ORDUA, ET AL. v. FUENTEBELLA, ET AL.

FACTS:
Antonita Ordua purchased a residential lot from Gabriel Sr. payable in
installments but no deed of sale was executed. The installments were paid to Gabriel Sr. and
later to Gabriel Jr. after the death of the former. Improvements were thereafter introduced by
petitioner and the latter even paid its real property tax since 1979. Unknown to Ordua, the
property has been subject to further alienations until the same was ceded to respondent,
Fuentebilla, Jr. Ordua, after being demanded by Fuentebilla to vacate the disputed land,
then filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Title, Reconveyance with Damages with a
prayer to acquire ownership over the subject lot upon payment of their remaining balance.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition because the verbal sale between Gabriel Sr.
and Ordua was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. This was later affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of the subject lot by Gabriel Sr. to Antonita is unenforceable
under the Statute of Frauds
HELD: No. It is a well-settled rule that the Statute of Frauds as expressed in Article 1403,
par. (2), of the Civil Code is applicable only to purely executory contracts and not to
contracts which have already been executed either totally or partially. Here, the verbal
contract of sale has been partially executed through the partial payments made by Ordua
duly received by both Gabriel Jr. and his father. The purpose of the Statute of Fraud is
prevention fraud and perjury in the enforcement of obligations depending for their evidence
on the unassisted memory of witnesses, by requiring some contracts and transactions to be
evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged. Since there is already ratification
of the verbal contract through the acceptance of benefits through the partial payments, it is
thus withdrawn from the purview of the Statute of Frauds.

You might also like