GR L 4002; (May, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4002 May 12, 1952
RAMON PASCUAL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. REALTY INVESTMENT, INC., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff Ramon Pascual filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel defendant Realty Investment, Inc. to sell to him a parcel of land he had occupied as a tenant since 1912. He alleged that in 1941, the property was transferred to the defendant for subdivision and sale. He offered to buy it, and the defendant’s manager verbally agreed to sell it at P15 per square meter, but failed to perfect the sale. In February 1948, the defendant increased the price to P25 per square meter, to which plaintiff agreed, but the defendant again failed to carry out the sale. Instead of answering, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cause of action, based on a verbal agreement to sell real property, was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the alleged verbal agreement to sell real property is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
RULING
No, the lower court did not err. The purpose of the action is to enforce a verbal agreement to sell real property, which under Section 21(e), Rule 123 of the Rules of Court (the Statute of Frauds), must be in writing or evidenced by a note or memorandum to be enforceable. The plaintiff contended that the case was taken out of the Statute of Frauds because he took possession and made substantial improvements due to the verbal contract. However, the complaint contained no such allegations. It specifically alleged that plaintiff occupied the land as a tenant since 1912, not that he took possession or made improvements as a consequence of the later verbal agreement to sell. Since the case was dismissed on a motion to dismiss, the court’s ruling could only be based on the allegations in the complaint, which did not present facts that would exempt the agreement from the Statute of Frauds. Therefore, the order of dismissal was affirmed.