G.R. No. 21313 - MARCH 1924 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 21313March 29, 1924 Esteban Barretto vs. Manila Railroad Co. G.R. No. 21820March 26, 1924 Maria Evangelista, et al. vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. 21706March 26, 1924 Josefina Rubio Vda. de Larena vs. Hermenegildo Villanueva G.R. No. 21475March 26, 1924 Vegetable Oil Corporation vs. Wenceslao Trinidad G.R. No. 21390March 26, 1924 People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Francisco G.R. No. 21753March 25, 1924 Cesarea Concepcion, et al., vs. Philippine Mining Industrial Co. G.R. No. 21752March 25, 1924 Vicenta Risari vs. Philippine Mining Industrial Co. G.R. No. 21751March 25, 1924 Maria Agdoro vs. Philippine Mining Industrial Co. G.R. No. 21383March 25, 1924 H. O'Leary vs. Macondray & Company, Inc. G.R. No. 21140March 25, 1924 Cruz, Merchant & Company vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 21015March 24, 1924 Miguela Carrillo vs. Justiniano Jaojoco, et al. G.R. No. 21237March 22, 1924 James D. Barton vs. Leyte Asphalt & Mineral Oil Co., Ltd. G.R. No. 20475March 19, 1924 In re: Tan Diuco. Mamerta Base G.R. No. 21495March 18, 1924 Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Insular Maritime Co. G.R. No. 21178March 18, 1924 Emilio J. Valdez vs. Leon Sibal G.R. No. 21164March 18, 1924 Natividad Batiquin, et al. vs. Filomena Batiquin, et al. G.R. No. 21418March 17, 1924 People of the Philippines vs. Ramon de Loyola, et al. G.R. No. 21284March 12, 1924 Juan Verceluz, et al. vs. Deogracias Edaño, et al. G.R. No. 21362March 6, 1924 Lung Chea Kung Kee & Co. vs. Vicente Aldanese, et al. G.R. No. 21310March 6, 1924 Gui Jong & Co. vs. Jose Rivera, et al. G.R. No. 20991March 6, 1924 In re: Umberto de Poli G.A. Cu unjieng vs. Asia Banking Corporation, et al. G.R. No. 21320March 4, 1924 Asiatic Petroleum Company, Ltd. vs. Wenceslao Trinidad The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Esteban Barretto vs. Manila Railroad Co. Maria Evangelista, et al. vs. Director of Lands, et al. Josefina Rubio Vda. de Larena vs. Hermenegildo Villanueva Vegetable Oil Corporation vs. Wenceslao Trinidad People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Francisco Cesarea Concepcion, et al., vs. Philippine Mining Industrial Co. Vicenta Risari vs. Philippine Mining Industrial Co. Maria Agdoro vs. Philippine Mining Industrial Co. H. O'Leary vs. Macondray & Company, Inc. Cruz, Merchant & Company vs. Insular Collector of Customs Miguela Carrillo vs. Justiniano Jaojoco, et al. James D. Barton vs. Leyte Asphalt & Mineral Oil Co., Ltd. In re: Tan Diuco. Mamerta Base Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Insular Maritime Co. Emilio J. Valdez vs. Leon Sibal Natividad Batiquin, et al. vs. Filomena Batiquin, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ramon de Loyola, et al. Juan Verceluz, et al. vs. Deogracias Edaño, et al. Lung Chea Kung Kee & Co. vs. Vicente Aldanese, et al. Gui Jong & Co. vs. Jose Rivera, et al. In re: Umberto de Poli G.A. Cu unjieng vs. Asia Banking Corporation, et al. Asiatic Petroleum Company, Ltd. vs. Wenceslao Trinidad The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 21313             March 29, 1924

ESTEBAN BARRETTO,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
THE MANILA RAILROAD CO.,defendant-appellant.

Jose C. Abreu for appellant.
Gregorio Perfecto for appellee.

OSTRAND,J.:

The plaintiff alleges that on February 11, 1922, the defendant offered to purchase from him a strong material house, No. 1210, Calle Dagupan, situated on the land of the defendant, for the sum of P3,700; that the plaintiff accepted the offer and in purchase thereof executed a deed of sale of the house in favor of the defendant, but that upon the presentation of the deed to the defendant the latter refused, and still refuses, to pay the purchase price.

The defendant's answer denies generally the allegations of the complaint and sets up as a special defense that the agreement referred to by the plaintiff was not in writing and therefore is not enforcible under the Statute of Frauds.

It appears from the evidence that on February 2, 1922, the general manager of the defendant company addressed a communication to Mr. J. C. Miller, the right-of-way agent of the same company, asking for full information about two houses of strong material situated on Calle Dagupan and inquiring if the purchase of the houses would be advantageous for the purposes of the company.

On February 7th Miller returned the communication to the general manager with the following endorsement:

On the strength of the last indorsement the plaintiff was informed that the defendant company was willing to buy his house for P3,700 and was instructed to go to Miller's office and there execute the deed for the house. The plaintiff did so, the deed was duly executed and he was told to come back to the office in the afternoon of the same day to receive the purchase price. He left the deed with Miller and later returned to the latter's office, as directed, but was then told that the general manager was absent and that the money could not be paid until the latter's return. Plaintiff made several other unsuccessful attempts to collect the purchase money and finally Miller handed him the deed to keep until arrangements could be made for the payment.

Upon the facts stated, the court below held, in effect, that there had been a sufficient part performance on the plaintiff's part to take the contract out of the Statute of Frauds and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount demanded in the complaint. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

Though the failure of the Railroad Company to accept the deed after having offered to but the house and having subjected the plaintiff to much trouble and annoyance may be subject to criticism, we are, nevertheless, constrained to hold that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff has established no cause of action. It may be observed that in addition to pleading the Statute of Frauds as a defense, the defendant, during the trial of the case, also made timely objections to the introduction of parol evidence to prove the contract of sale and took due exceptions to the adverse rulings of the court and that, therefore, articles 1278 and 1279 of the Civil Code do not apply. (See Conluvs.Araneta and Guanko, 15 Phil., 387; Gallemitvs.Tabiliran, 20 Phil., 241; Gomezvs.Salcedo, 26 Phil., 485; Gorospe and Gorospevs.Ilayat, 29 Phil., 21; Santosvs.Rivera, 33 Phil., 1; Abrenicavs.Gonda and De Gracia, 34 Phil., 739.)

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. (Comminsvs.Perry, 90 N. Y. Supp., 92; Nyevs.Taggart, 40 Vt., 295; Luzadervs.Richmond, 128 Ind., 344; Freelandvs.Charnley, 80 Ind., 132; Townsendvs.Hawkins, 45 Mo., 286.)

In the present case it is very clear that there was no delivery of the deed with the intention to part with the title until the purchase price was paid, and it is equally clear that there was no final acceptance of the deed; the fact that the deed was returned to the plaintiff and by him retained, is practically conclusive upon this point. What might have been the result had the defendant's agent retained the deed or had the defendant entered into actual possession of the property, we do not here decide.

The judgment appealed from is reversed without costs in either instance. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Street, Avanceña, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.