This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-07-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As correctly found by the appellate court, the occupation and construction of the improvements made by petitioners on the disputed property are clear acts of ratification and enforcement. In other words, the erection of these structures on the subject lot indicates that the lease contract was already in effect. The Statute of Frauds applies only to executory and not completed, executed or partially executed contracts.[23] Thus, where as in this case, one party has performed his obligation, oral evidence will be admitted to prove the agreement.[24] Furthermore, as can be gleaned from Exhibit "B"[25] of respondents, the amount of P20,000.00 received on April 21, 1989 was apparently for the rent of a stall. Indeed, the said document expressly states that it is a receipt for rentals. Petitioners can not now say that the said receipt is proof of an alleged down payment of the subject lot. Moreover, while there was testimony to the effect that the balance of P60,000.00 from the alleged purchase price of P80,000.00 was allegedly paid on July 3, 1989, the receipt therefore was never presented despite an earlier reservation to do so. | |||||