Domalagan v. Bolifer
Nature of
the Case: Recover of
the defendant the sum of P516, together with damages estimated in the sum of
P350 and interest, and costs.
Doctrine:
If the parties to an action, during the trial of the cause, make no objection
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 a
writing, it will be just as binding upon the parties as if it had been reduced
to writing.
Facts: Plaintiff alleged that, in the month of
November, 1909, he and the defendant entered into a contract by virtue of the
terms of which he was to pay to the defendant the sum of P500 upon the marriage
of his son Cipriano Domalagan with the daughter of the defendant, Bonifacia
Bolifer;
He
completed his obligation under said contract by paying to the defendant the
said sum of P500, together with the further sum of P16 "as hansel or token
of future marriage," that, notwithstanding said agreement, the said Bonifacia
Bolifer, in the month of August, 1910, was joined in lawful wedlock to Laureano
Sisi.
He demanded
of the defendant the return of the said sum of P516 together with the interest
and damages; that the damages which he suffered resulted from the fact that he,
in order to raise said sum of P500, was obliged to sell certain real property
belonging to him, located in the Province of Bohol, at a great sacrifice.
Defendant
presented a general denial. He also alleged that the facts stated in the
complaint do not constitute a cause of action.
CFI:
rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in said
sum of P516 together with the interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the 17th
of December, 1910.
Issue: WON the verbal contract entered into by
the plaintiff and the defendant in regard to the delivery of the money by
reason of a prospective marriage is valid and effective
Ruling: YES
The
appellant contends that a contract, such as the one relied upon by the
plaintiff, in order to be valid, must be reduced to writing. We have examined
the record in vain to find that the defendant during the trial of the cause
objected to any proof or any part thereof, presented by the plaintiff, which
showed or tended to show the existence of the alleged contract. That part of
said section 335 which the appellant relies upon for relief provides:
"In
the following cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by
action unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and
subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the
agreement can not be received without the writing or secondary evidence of its
contents:
"1.**
* "2.** *
"3. An
agreement made upon the consideration of marriage, other than a mutual promise
to marry."
Said
section (335) does not render oral contracts invalid. A contract may be valid
and yet, by virtue of said section, the parties will be unable to prove it.
Said
section provides that the contract shall not be enforced by an action unless
the same is evidenced by some note or memorandum. Said section simply provides
the method by which the contracts mentioned therein may be proved. It does not
declare that said contracts are invalid, which have not been reduced to
writing, except perhaps those mentioned in paragraph 5 of said section (335). A
contract may be a perfectly valid contract even though it is not clothed with
the necessary form. If it is not made in conformity with said section of course
it cannot be proved, if proper objection is made. But a failure to except to
evidence presented in order to prove the contract, because it does not conform
to the statute, is a waiver of the provisions of the law.
If the
parties to an action, during the trial of the cause, make no objection 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 a writing, it will
be just as binding upon the parties as if it had been reduced to writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment