Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    124.carbonnel v. Poncio, Et Al - Statutes of Fraud

    Uploaded by

    Jesha GC
    Rosario Carbonnel claims she purchased land from Jose Poncio, paying part of the price and assuming his bank obligation, but Poncio refuses to execute the deed of sale. Poncio denies the sale and claims the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement as there is no written contract. The Supreme Court sets aside the lower court's dismissal, explaining the Statute of Frauds does not apply to contracts partially or fully performed to prevent fraud. The Court remands the case for Carbonnel to present oral evidence supporting her claim against the defendants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    124.carbonnel v. Poncio, Et Al - Statutes of Fraud

    Uploaded by

    Jesha GC
    72 views1 page
    Rosario Carbonnel claims she purchased land from Jose Poncio, paying part of the price and assuming his bank obligation, but Poncio refuses to execute the deed of sale. Poncio denies the sale and claims the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement as there is no written contract. The Supreme Court sets aside the lower court's dismissal, explaining the Statute of Frauds does not apply to contracts partially or fully performed to prevent fraud. The Court remands the case for Carbonnel to present oral evidence supporting her claim against the defendants.

    Original Description:

    asdfgh

    Original Title

    124.Carbonnel v. Poncio, Et Al_ Statutes of Fraud

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rosario Carbonnel claims she purchased land from Jose Poncio, paying part of the price and assuming his bank obligation, but Poncio refuses to execute the deed of sale. Poncio denies the sale and claims the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement as there is no written contract. The Supreme Court sets aside the lower court's dismissal, explaining the Statute of Frauds does not apply to contracts partially or fully performed to prevent fraud. The Court remands the case for Carbonnel to present oral evidence supporting her claim against the defendants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    72 views1 page

    124.carbonnel v. Poncio, Et Al - Statutes of Fraud

    Uploaded by

    Jesha GC
    Rosario Carbonnel claims she purchased land from Jose Poncio, paying part of the price and assuming his bank obligation, but Poncio refuses to execute the deed of sale. Poncio denies the sale and claims the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement as there is no written contract. The Supreme Court sets aside the lower court's dismissal, explaining the Statute of Frauds does not apply to contracts partially or fully performed to prevent fraud. The Court remands the case for Carbonnel to present oral evidence supporting her claim against the defendants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    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.

    You might also like