Ortega v Leonardo

Ortega v Leonardo 

 

 

 

Maria Ortega averred that long before and until her house has been completely destroyed during the liberation of the City of Manila, she occupied Lot 1, Block 3. Located at San Andres Street, Malate, Manila After the liberation, she re-occupied it but Daniel Leonardo asserted that he too had a right to a portion of the land. During the occupation, Leonardo asked Ortega to desist from pressing claims and he promised her if he succeeded in getting the title to Lot 1, he would sell her a portion thereof with an area of 55.60 square meters, at P25.00 per square meter. In return, Ortega would pai for surveying and subdivision of the lot and should continue holding the lot by paying a monthly rental of P10 until said portion has been segregated and the purchase price fully paid. Ortega accepted the agreement and desisted from further claims. Defendant acquired the title and in return plaintiff caused the survey and segregation of the portion which defendant promised to sell. She also o Had a subdivision plan, her lot known as 1B o Had her son’s house remodelled and it extended over said lot o Tendered to defendant full purchase price on July 1954 Defendant refused to accept payment. LC: oral agreement to sell is not enforceable o Plaintiff: the contract was already partially performed due to the promise of defendant

WN there was already partial performance on the part of the plaintiff? YES   



Partial performance of sale is not restricted only to partial payment of purchase price. “Statute of Frauds” lists other act of partial performance such as: possession, making of improvements, rendition of services Continued possession under an oral contract of sale, by one already in possession as a tenant, has been held a sufficient part performance, where accompanied by other acts which characterize the continued possession and refer it to the contract of purchase. Especially is this true where the circumstances of the case include the making of substantial, permanent, and valuable improvements. The complaint in this case described several circumstance indicating partial performance: o relinquishment of rights  compromise to give up claim o continued possession, o building of improvements,  the making of valuable permanent improvements on the land by the purchaser, in pursuance of the agreement and with the

o

o

knowledge of the vendor, has been said to be the strongest and the most unequivocal act of part performance by which a verbal contract to sell land is taken out of the statute of frauds, and is ordinarily an important element in such part performance tender of payment plus the surveying of the lot at plaintiff's expense and  A tender or offer of payment, declined by the vendor, has been said to be equivalent to actual payment, for the purposes of determining whether or not there has been a part performance of the contract. This is apparently true where the tender is by a purchaser who has made improvements. But the doctrine now generally accepted, that not even the payment of the purchase price, without something more, . . . is a sufficient part performance. (49 American Jurisprudence p. 772.) the payment of rentals.