Court Bailiff: All rise. The Honorable Court is now in session. Judge (Name sa mga judges) presiding.

Judge 1: Thank you. You may be seated. The Court is now in session. We call G.R. No.12345, Yuvienco vs
Dacuycuy. Is the prosecution now ready?

Azuelo/Cuenco: Yes, your Honor.

Judge 2: Is the defense ready?

Azuelo/Cuenco: Yes, your Honor.

Judge 3: Okay, we will now hear the opening statements from the prosecution.

Azuelo: Your Honor my name is ______ and this is my co-counsel________. We represent the party of
Dacuycuy, et.al. And today we are filing a motion of consideration regarding the decision made by the Supreme
Court in favour of Yuvienco et. Al. The Supreme Court ruled that our party cannot ask for a specific
performance against the defendant because there was no specific cause of action where the telegram-reply
which is not absolute acceptance under Article 1319 of the Civil Code does not show the existence of a
perfected contract of sale. We will prove that there was indeed a perfected contract between the parties. And
your Honor this is why we ask for you to reverse the decision regarding the case at bar. Your Honor, we believe
that on July 25-27, 1978 there was already a perfected contract between the parties through telegram.
Therefore, both parties have impliedly forfeited the negotiation details that was supposedly to happen when
the representative of the defendants arrived in Tacloban. There was nothing to negotiate because both parties
opted to negotiate the terms of payment through telegrams. In fact, there was already an agreement regarding
the terms and conditions of the buyers on July 25, when the letter stipulated that the payment shall be fully
paid within 90 days. Furthermore, the terms and conditions sent by our clients on July 25 were accepted by the
defendants representative on July 27. The contract presented by the defendants representative on August
was only for formality because there was already a perfected contract. Its just that, the stipulations written in
the contract were different from that of which was previously communicated by the parties. Another argument
stated by the SC was that there was no written document that the buyers intended not to pay in cash but in
instalments. However, it very apparent that the agreement thru telegram and even in the contract itself that 2M
is to be paid on the date of the execution of the contract and the balance of 4.5M shall be paid within 90 days.
From the start, it has been decided that my clients would be paying in instalments and not in cash.

Judge 1: Thank you, counsel. Would the defense like to give their opening now or would they like to defer until
the prosecution rest their case?

Magaway/Sotto: We would like to give our opening statement, your Honor.

Judge 2: You may.

Magaway/Sotto: Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the Court, my name is ________ and this is my co-
counsel and today, we are representing the defendant, Yuvienco et.al. The petitioner is claiming that there was
indeed a perfected contract between my client and the counsels client. However, it is clear that there was no
meeting of the minds during the negtotiation, hence the contract was not perfected. While it is true that my
clients expressed their willingness to sell to private respondents the subject property for 6,500,000, provided
that the petitioner made known their decision to buy it not later than July 31, 1978, the petitioners reply that
they were agreeable was not absolute, so much that when ultimately that when my clients representative, Atty.
Gamboa went to Tacloban City with a prepared and duly signed contract for the purpose of perfecting and
consummating transaction, petitioners and representative found variance between the terms of payment
stipulated in the prepared document and what petitioners have in mind, hence the bankdraft which
respondents were delivering to my clients representative was returned and the document remained unsigned
by the petitioner. The contract of sale is unenforceable under the Statue of Frauds because there are no writing
or memorandum duly signed that the price of P6,500,000 fixed by petitioners for the real property herein
involved was agreed to be paid not in cash but in installments as alleged by respondent. The contract involves
the "sale of real property" that comes under the Statute of Frauds Article 1403, Paragraph 2(e) of the Civil
Code which states that for the sale of real property to be enforceable, it must be reduced into writing. While
there is no form or language specifically required, however, it is necessary that the note, memorandum or
writing should contain the following details: Name of the parties; terms and conditions of the agreement;
description of the subject matter for the proper identification thereof; place and date of the making of the
agreement; and signature/s of the parties who are assuming the obligation. Since there is no writing or
memorandum duly signed, the action for specific performance will not prosper. The contract of sale is still
within the purview of the Statute of Frauds because there has no payment or delivery made. Hence, there was
no contract perfected because the agreement was not signed by the buyers due to the fact that there was no
meeting of the mind regarding the term of payment.

JUDGE 3: Thank you counsel. Based on the statements given by both parties, my colleague and I would like
to make some clarifications and inquiries.

JUDGE 1: So counsel for appellants, you are saying that there was indeed a perfected contract between your
client and opposing counsels clients?

CUENCO: YES

JUDGE1: Why do you say so? And do you have any legal basis to support that claim?

CUENCO: Essential elements contract of sale.

JUDGE3: So you are saying that because there is an object and price thereof together with the consent of both
parties, there is already a perfected contract?

CUENCO: Yes.

JUDGE 2: But in this case, consent being a meeting of the mind, how would you prove the existence of such
meeting so as to bind the other party to your said perfected contract?

CUENCO: Letters and telegrams as evidence.

JUDGE 2: Assuming that the letters and telegrams would indeed prove acceptance by the respondents of the
offer made by your client, doesnt the contract with the changed terms presented by the lawyer of the
respondents duly signed by them imply that the acceptance was not yet absolute which is a requirement for
there to be a valid consent?

CUENCO: accepted on ACCEPTANCE LETTER

JUDGE 3: Can we now ask the opposing counsel regarding the Telegram sent by their client dated July 27,
1987. What was the intention of your client in reiterating in the telegram that they accepted the agreement in
Annex C1? Was that not an absolute acceptance?

MAGAWAY: No because such does not comply with the requisites of the Statute of Frauds...there should be a
note or memorandum duly signed by the party..

JUDGE 1: So, what is a note or memorandum? What is your interpretation of the definition?

MAGAWAY: Note or memorandum should contain the following details: Name of the parties; terms and
conditions of the agreement; description of the subject matter for the proper identification thereof; place and
date of the making of the agreement; and signature/s of the parties who are assuming the obligation. Since
there is no writing or memorandum duly signed, the action for specific performance will not prosper.

AZUELO: Your Honor, can I say something?

JUDGE 1: Proceed.

AZUELO: A note or memorandum is evidence of the agreement, and is used to show the intention of the
parties

*last statement of both counsels/party*

JUDGE 3: Premises considered, my colleagues will deliberate and render judgement Feb. 17. (Bang gavel)
No. Considering that Yao was in Tacloban then while Atty. Gambao was in Cebu, it is difficult to infer
that there was a communication of any kind between them during the intervening period, and it was
not alleged by respondents. Accordingly, the claim that there was an agreement of a down payment
of P2 M, with the balance of P4.5 of be paid within 90 days afterwards is rather improbable to have
actually happened. Considering that this case happened in 1981 and the mode of communication
was through telegram, it is impossible that the two parties came into such agreement within a short
period of of time.
Let me reiterate the facts your Honor, Annex C is the telegram which my client sent on July 12, 1978
expressing their willingness to sell to private respondents the subject property for 6,500,000. Annex C-1 is the
telegram dated July 25, 1978 sent by private respondents which states that we agree to buy property proceed
to Tacloban to negotiate details. As a consequence, private respondents claim that there was an
agreement of a down payment of P2 M, with the balance of P4.5 of be paid within 90 days. However,
there are no telegram, note or memorandum that would support that the parties agreed to such
condition. The private respondent only presented the telegram marked as Annex D Proposal
accepted arriving Tuesday morning with contract prepare payment bank draft.
Assuming that there was an agreement of a down payment of P2 M, with the balance of P4.5 of be
paid within 90 days, under the Statute of Frauds Article 1403, Paragraph 2(e) of the Civil Code which states
that for the sale of real property to be enforceable, it must be reduced into writing. The respondents did not
present any telegram, note or memorandum to show such agreement.

Article 1356 of the Civil Code states that: Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may
have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. However,
when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or
that a contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. In such
cases, the right of the parties stated in the following article cannot be exercised. This case involves a
sale of real property which must be reduced into writing for it to be enforceable under the Statute of
Frauds. Since there is no writing or memorandum duly signed, the action for specific performance will
not prosper.