11/13/2016

G.R.No.L8166

TodayisSunday,November13,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L8166February8,1916
JORGEDOMALAGAN,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
CARLOSBOLIFER,defendantappellant.
M.Abejuelaforappellant.
TroadioGalicanoforappellee.
JOHNSON,J.:
ThisactionwascommencedintheCourtofFirstInstanceoftheProvinceofMisamis,onthe17thofDecember,
1910.ItwasnotpresentedtotheSupremeCourtuntilthe11thofJanuary1916.Itspurposewastorecoverofthe
defendantthesumofP516,togetherwithdamagesestimatedinthesumofP350andinterest,andcosts.
Insupportofhisclaimtheplaintiffallegedthat,inthemonthofNovember,1909,heandthedefendantentered
intoacontractbyvirtueofthetermsofwhichhewastopaytothedefendantthesumofP500uponthemarriage
of his son Cipriano Domalagan with the daughter of the defendant, Bonifacia Bolifer, that later, in the month of
August,1910,hecompletedhisobligationundersaidcontractbypayingtothedefendantthesaidsumof500,
together with the further sum of P16 "as hansel or token of future marriage," that, notwithstanding said
agreement,thesaidBonifacioBolifer,inthemonthofAugust,1910,wasjoinedinlawfulwedlocktoLaureanoSisi
thatimmediatelyuponlearningofthemarriageofBonifaciaBoliferhedemandedofthedefendantthereturnof
thesaidsumofP516togetherwiththeinterestanddamagesthatthedamageswhichhesufferedresultedfrom
the fact that he, in order to raise said sum of P500, was obliged to sell certain real property belonging to him,
locatedintheProvinceofBohol,atagreatsacrifice.
Tothecomplaintthedefendantpresentedageneraldenial.Healsoallegedthatthefactsstatedinthecomplaint
donotconstituteacauseofaction.Upontheissuepresentedthecausewasbroughtonfortrial.Afterhearingthe
evidencetheHonorableVicenteNepomuceno,judge,inanextendedopinioninwhichalloftheevidenceadduced
during the trial of the cause is carefully analyzed reached the conclusion "of fact that plaintiff delivered to
defendantthesumofP516suedforandthatCarlosBoliferandLaureanaLoqueroreceivedanddidnotreturn
thesaidamount,"andforthereasonthattheevidencedidnotsufficientlyshowthattheplaintiffhadsufferedany
additionaldamages,renderedajudgmentinfavoroftheplaintiffandagainstthedefendantinsaidsumofP516
togetherwiththeinterestattherateof6percentfromthe17thofDecember,1910,andcosts.
Fromthatjudgmentthedefendantappealedtothiscourtandmadethefollowingassignmentsoferror:
1.InholdingtobeproventhefactofthedeliverybytheplaintiffofthesumofP516tothedefendant,Carlos
Boliferand
2.Inholdingtobevalidandeffectivetheverbalcontractenteredintobytheplaintiffandthedefendantin
regardtothedeliveryofthemoneybyreasonofaprospectivemarriage.
Thefirstassignmentoferrorpresentsaquestionoffact.Thelowercourtfoundthatalargepreponderanceofthe
evidence showed that the plaintiff had delivered to the defendant the sum of P516 in substantially the manner
allegedinthecomplaint.Takingintoconsiderationthatthelowercourtsawandheardthewitnesses,togetherwith
thefurtherfactthatthereisanabundanceofuncontradictedproofsupportingthefindingsofthelowercourt,we
are not inclined to disturb its judgment for any of the reasons given by the appellant in support of his first
assignmentoferror.
Withreferencetothesecondassignmentoferror,theappellantcallsourattentiontotheprovisionsofparagraph
3ofsection335oftheCodeofProcedureinCivilAction.Theappellantarguesthatbyvirtueoftheprovisionsof
said paragraph and by virtue of the fact that the agreement upon which the plaintiff relies and under which he
paid to the defendant the sum of P516 had not been reduced to writing, he could therefore not recover. The
appellant contends that a contract, such as the one relied upon by the plaintiff, in order to be valid, must be
reducedtowriting.Wehaveexaminedtherecordinvaintofindthatthedefendantduringthetrialofthecause
objectedtoanyprooforanypartthereof,presentedbytheplaintiffwhichshowedortendedtoshowtheexistence
oftheallegedcontract.Thatpartofsaidsection335whichtheappellantreliesuponforreliefprovides:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1916/feb1916/gr_l8166_1916.html

1/2

11/13/2016

G.R.No.L8166

Inthefollowingcasesanagreementhereaftermadeshallbeunenforceablebyactionunlessthesame,or
some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent
evidence,therefore,oftheagreementcannotbereceivedwithoutthewritingorsecondaryevidenceofits
contents:
1....
2....
3.Anagreementmadeupontheconsiderationofmarriage,otherthanamutualpromisetomarry.
Itwillbenoted,byreferencetosaidsection,that"evidence"oftheagreementreferredto"cannotbereceived
withoutthewritingorsecondaryevidenceofitscontents."Aswassaidaboveallofthe"evidence"relatingtosaid
"agreement"wasadmittedwithouttheslightestobjection.
Said section (335) does not render oral contracts invalid. A contract may be valid and yet, by virtue of said
section,thepartieswillbeunabletoproveit.Saidsectionprovidesthatthecontractshallnotbeenforcedbyan
actionunlessthesameisevidencebysomenoteormemorandum.Saidsectionsimplyprovidesthemethodby
whichthecontractmentionedthereinmaybeproved.Itdoesnotdeclarethatsaidcontractareinvalid,whichhave
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
confirmitywithsaidsectionofcourseitcannotbeproved,ifproperobjectionismade.Butafailuretoexceptto
evidencepresentedinordertoprovethecontract,becauseitdoesnotconformtothestatute,isawaiverofthe
provisionsofthelaw.Ifthepartiestoanaction,duringthetrialofthecause,makenoobjectiontotheadmissibility
oforalevidencetosupportcontractsliketheoneinquestionandpermitthecontracttobeproved,byevidence
other than a writing, it will be just as binding upon the parties as if it had been reduced to writing. (Anson on
Contracts, p. 75 Conlu vs. Araneta and Guanko, 15 Phil. Rep., 387 Gallemit vs. Tabiliran, 20 Phil. Rep., 241,
246KuenzleandStreiffvs.Joingco,22Phil.Rep.,110,112Gomezvs.Salcedo,26Phil.Rep.,485,489.)
Fortheforegoingreasonswefindnothingintherecordjustifyingareversalormodificationofthejudgmentofthe
lowercourtbaseduponeitherassignmentoferror.Thereforethejudgmentofthelowercourtisherebyaffirmed,
withcosts.Soordered.
Arellano,C.J.,Torres,CarsonandTrent,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1916/feb1916/gr_l8166_1916.html

2/2