G.R. No. L-16258. August 31, 1961.
BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO, petitioner, vs. ELIGIO SAYSON, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Eligio Sayson, a contractor, filed an action against petitioner Bartolome San Diego, the owner, to recover the sum of P6,840.31 for extra work performed in the construction of a building. The parties had a contract for the construction of a building at a fixed price of P15,000, based on plans approved by the city engineer. During construction, San Diego ordered numerous alterations and additions not included in the original approved plans, such as changes in dimensions, materials, and the inclusion of elements like a mezzanine and plastering that were originally omitted. Sayson performed this extra work but San Diego refused to pay for it.
San Diego’s defense relied on Article 1724 of the Civil Code, which requires that any change in plans and specifications, and the additional price to be paid, must be authorized and determined in writing by the proprietor. Sayson admitted there was no such written agreement for the alterations. Both the Court of First Instance of Manila and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Sayson, ordering San Diego to pay, on grounds of justice and equity, as San Diego benefited from the extra work.

ISSUE

Whether the contractor, Eligio Sayson, is entitled to recover payment for extra work performed without a written authorization and written agreement on price as required under Article 1724 of the Civil Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed Sayson’s action. The Court held that Article 1724 is a substantive and mandatory condition precedent to recovery, not a mere rule of evidence under the Statute of Frauds. The provision states that in a fixed-price construction contract, the contractor cannot demand a price increase due to changes in plans unless: (1) the change is authorized by the proprietor in writing, and (2) the additional price is determined in writing by both parties.
The Court traced the provision’s origin from the old Spanish Civil Code, noting the amendment was deliberately adopted to prevent misunderstandings and litigation. The legislative intent was clear: to require strict compliance with the written form as a prerequisite for claiming additional costs. Since Sayson failed to present any written authorization or written price agreement for the alterations, his claim is legally unenforceable. The equitable consideration that the owner benefited from the work cannot override this explicit statutory requirement. Therefore, San Diego cannot be held liable for the claimed additional costs.