Petitioner came to the Court asking to recover Php 516 paid to defendant for the promise of marriage between their children. The Court ruled in favor of Petitioner, stating that an oral contract for marriage, like the one entered into between the parties, is just as binding and enforceable as a written contract according to law. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Petitioner came to the Court asking to recover Php 516 paid to defendant for the promise of marriage between their children. The Court ruled in favor of Petitioner, stating that an oral contract for marriage, like the one entered into between the parties, is just as binding and enforceable as a written contract according to law. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Original Description:
Case Digest for Domalagan v. Bolifer by Trixie Peralta
Petitioner came to the Court asking to recover Php 516 paid to defendant for the promise of marriage between their children. The Court ruled in favor of Petitioner, stating that an oral contract for marriage, like the one entered into between the parties, is just as binding and enforceable as a written contract according to law. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Petitioner came to the Court asking to recover Php 516 paid to defendant for the promise of marriage between their children. The Court ruled in favor of Petitioner, stating that an oral contract for marriage, like the one entered into between the parties, is just as binding and enforceable as a written contract according to law. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Petitioner: Jorge Domalagan Respondents: Carlos Bolifer Ponente: Justice Johnson Appeal from a Judgment of the CFI of Misamis
Requisites for Donations
SUMMARY: Petitiioner came to the Court asking to recover Php 516 paid to defendant for the promise of marriage of their children. Court ruled in favor of Domalagan, stating that oral contracts are just as binding and enforceable as written ones. FACTS: • November 1909: o Petitioner and defendant entered into a contract, wherein Domalagan was to pay Bolifer the amount of Php 500, for the promise to marry Bolifer’s daughter, Bonifacia, to Domalagan’s son, Cipriano. • August 1910: o Domalagan paid off his obligation under said contract. In addition, he paid Php 16, which served as a token of future marriage. o However, during the same month, Bonifacia was married off to someone else. Upon learning of the marriage, Domalagan demanded from Bolifer the return of Php 516, together with interest and damages (since he had to sell his real property in order to obtain the Php 500). • CFI ruled in favor of petitioner.
ISSUE/S: • WoN the court erred in holding to be proven the fact of the delivery by the plaintiff of the sum of Php 516 to the defendant. • WoN the court erred in holding to be valid and effective the verbal contract entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant. HELD: • NO o Presents a question of fact which the Court cannot disturb, since it is the duty of the lower court to ascertain such. • NO o Defendant argues that the contract needs to be put into writing in order for it to be valid. Since their agreement was merely an oral one, petitioner cannot recover the Php 516. (relied on Paragraph 3, Section 335 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions) o Court held that the provision relied upon by the defendant did not render oral contracts invalid. A contract may be a perfectly valid one even though it is not clothed with the necessary form. o Moreover, neither party objected to the admissibility of oral evidence to support contracts like the one in question, and permit the contract to be proved, by evidence other than writing, it will be just as binding upon the parties as if it had been reduced to writing. RULING: • Petition denied, ruling of the CFI affirmed.
