Domalagan v. Bolifer
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Jorge Domalagan alleged that he and defendant Carlos Bolifer entered into a verbal contract in November 1909, wherein Domalagan agreed to pay Bolifer P500 upon the marriage of Domalagan's son, Cipriano, to Bolifer's daughter, Bonifacia. Domalagan claimed to have paid P500 and an additional P16 as "hansel or token of future marriage" in August 1910. However, Bonifacia married Laureano Sisi in August 1910. Domalagan demanded the return of P516, alleging damages from being forced to sell property at a sacrifice to raise the P500. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Misamis found as a fact that the plaintiff delivered P516 to the defendant and that the defendant received and did not return the amount. The court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for P516 with interest at 6% from December 17, 1910, and costs, finding insufficient evidence of additional damages. The Petition: The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the holding that the delivery of P516 was proven and the holding that the verbal contract concerning the delivery of money for a prospective marriage was valid and effective.
Issue(s)
Whether the delivery of P516 by the plaintiff to the defendant was sufficiently proven. Whether a verbal contract made in consideration of marriage, not reduced to writing, is valid and enforceable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding that the verbal contract, despite not being in writing, was binding because evidence of its existence was admitted without objection, thereby waiving the requirement of the Statute of Frauds.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proof of delivery: The Court found that the lower court's conclusion that the plaintiff delivered P516 to the defendant was supported by a preponderance of evidence. Given that the lower court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and hear their testimonies, and considering the abundance of uncontradicted proof, the Supreme Court was disinclined to disturb this finding of fact. The appellant's arguments did not sufficiently demonstrate error in this regard. On the validity and enforceability of the verbal contract: The Court addressed the appellant's reliance on paragraph 3 of section 335 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Action, which requires agreements made in consideration of marriage to be in writing to be enforceable. The Court noted that this section renders such agreements "unenforceable by action unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing." However, the Court found that the defendant failed to object to the admission of oral evidence presented by the plaintiff to prove the existence of the alleged contract during the trial. The Court emphasized that section 335 does not invalidate oral contracts but merely provides the method by which they may be proved. By failing to object to the oral evidence, the defendant waived the benefit of the Statute of Frauds. The Court cited several authorities for the principle that a failure to object to the admissibility of oral evidence to prove a contract constitutes a waiver of the provisions of the law, making the contract as binding as if it had been reduced to writing.
Main Doctrine
An oral contract, even if it falls under the Statute of Frauds, becomes binding if evidence of its existence is admitted without objection, as such failure to object constitutes a waiver of the requirement for a written memorandum.