Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Barretto V Manila

    Uploaded by

    Marielle Reynoso
    Barretto sued Manila Railroad Company for failing to pay for a house after agreeing to purchase it. Manila Railroad Company objected to evidence of an oral contract and argued the contract was invalid under the statute of frauds. The court ruled in favor of Manila Railroad Company, finding no valid contract existed since the deed was returned without acceptance and payment, so there was no delivery or final acceptance to form a valid land sale contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Barretto V Manila

    Uploaded by

    Marielle Reynoso
    19 views1 page
    Barretto sued Manila Railroad Company for failing to pay for a house after agreeing to purchase it. Manila Railroad Company objected to evidence of an oral contract and argued the contract was invalid under the statute of frauds. The court ruled in favor of Manila Railroad Company, finding no valid contract existed since the deed was returned without acceptance and payment, so there was no delivery or final acceptance to form a valid land sale contract.

    Original Title

    Barretto v Manila.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Barretto sued Manila Railroad Company for failing to pay for a house after agreeing to purchase it. Manila Railroad Company objected to evidence of an oral contract and argued the contract was invalid under the statute of frauds. The court ruled in favor of Manila Railroad Company, finding no valid contract existed since the deed was returned without acceptance and payment, so there was no delivery or final acceptance to form a valid land sale contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Barretto V Manila

    Uploaded by

    Marielle Reynoso
    Barretto sued Manila Railroad Company for failing to pay for a house after agreeing to purchase it. Manila Railroad Company objected to evidence of an oral contract and argued the contract was invalid under the statute of frauds. The court ruled in favor of Manila Railroad Company, finding no valid contract existed since the deed was returned without acceptance and payment, so there was no delivery or final acceptance to form a valid land sale contract.

    Copyright:

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

    ESTEBAN BARRETTO v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    ○ Barretto has no cause of action, even though MRC failed to accept


    Formation of Contract of Sale | March 29, 1924 | J. Ostrand the deed after they offered to buy the house. During the trial, MRC
    made timely objections to the introduction of parol evidence to
    Nature of Case: Appeal prove the contract of sale and took out due exceptions to the
    Digest maker: MReynoso adverse rulings of the court. Art. 1278 and 1279 of the CC do not
    SUMMARY: Manila Railroad Company sought to buy Barretto’s house (which apply.
    was situated in the former’s land). They executed a deed of sale. Later, Manila ○ In the present case, it is very clear that there was no delivery of the
    Railroad Company failed to pay the purchase price, even after multiple attempts deed with the intention to part with the title until the purchase
    by Barretto. The former returned the deed. price was paid, and it was equally clear that there was no final
    DOCTRINE: Where timely objections are made to the introduction of parol acceptance of the deed. The deed was returned.
    evidence to prove a sale of real property and due exceptions are taken to the
    adverse rulings, such evidence must be disregarded by the courts and the contract RULING:
    cannot be enforced. Judgment reversed. Ruled in favor of Manila Railroad Company.

    FACTS:
    ● Feb. 11, 1922 - According to Barretto, Manila Railroad Co. (MRC) offered to
    purchase Barretto’s house (No. 1210 Calle Dagupan) that was on MRC’s
    land for P3,700.
    o Barretto agreed, and they executed a deed of sale of the house. But
    upon the presentation of the deed to MRC, they refused to pay the
    purchase price.
    o MRC: Denies the allegations. Also, the agreement referred to by
    Barretto was not in writing, and therefore not enforceable under the
    Statute of Frauds.
    ● There is evidence to show that on Feb 2, 1922, the general manager of MRC
    asked J.C. Miller (right-of-way agent of MRC) about the two houses situated
    in Calle Dagupan, and the former also inquired if the purchase of the houses
    would be advantageous for the company.
    o Miller: Yes. Since renting the building, it has cost them P20,801. It
    would be better if they just bought it.
    ● The general manager then authorized the purchase. MRC told Barretto to go
    to Miller’s office to execute the deed for the house. Barretto did, and they
    executed. He was told to come back to the office in the afternoon to receive
    the purchase price.
    ● When he returned, MRC said that the general manager was not there, and
    he would not be paid until the general manager returned. He made other
    unsuccessful attempts to collect the purchase money. Miller returned the
    deed to keep until payment.
    ● Court: There had been a sufficient part performance on Barretto’s part to
    take the contract out of the Statute of Frauds. Ruled in favor of Barretto.
    ● MRC Appealed.

    ISSUE/S & RATIO:


    1. W/N the delivery of the deed takes the case out of the Statute of Frauds?
    NO
    ○ It is well settled that the delivery of the deed to the agent of the
    vendee, with no intention to part with the title, does not take the
    case out of the Statute of Frauds

    You might also like