Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 492 views

    Jorge Domalagan Vs Carlos Bolifer 33 Phil 471 Digest

    Uploaded by

    JERROM ABAINZA
    The defendant appealed a lower court ruling that ordered him to repay the plaintiff P516 plus interest for breaching a verbal agreement to marry their children. The agreement stipulated that the plaintiff would pay the defendant P500 upon the marriage of their son and daughter, plus P16 as a "hansel". However, the defendant's daughter married someone else. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the verbal agreement was valid and binding despite not being written, as oral contracts are not inherently invalid under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jorge Domalagan Vs Carlos Bolifer 33 Phil 471 Digest

    Uploaded by

    JERROM ABAINZA
    492 views1 page
    The defendant appealed a lower court ruling that ordered him to repay the plaintiff P516 plus interest for breaching a verbal agreement to marry their children. The agreement stipulated that the plaintiff would pay the defendant P500 upon the marriage of their son and daughter, plus P16 as a "hansel". However, the defendant's daughter married someone else. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the verbal agreement was valid and binding despite not being written, as oral contracts are not inherently invalid under Philippine law.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest_Persons and Family Relations_Uribe_Syllabus

    Original Title

    53. Jorge Domalagan vs Carlos Bolifer 33 Phil 471 Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant appealed a lower court ruling that ordered him to repay the plaintiff P516 plus interest for breaching a verbal agreement to marry their children. The agreement stipulated that the plaintiff would pay the defendant P500 upon the marriage of their son and daughter, plus P16 as a "hansel". However, the defendant's daughter married someone else. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the verbal agreement was valid and binding despite not being written, as oral contracts are not inherently invalid under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    492 views1 page

    Jorge Domalagan Vs Carlos Bolifer 33 Phil 471 Digest

    Uploaded by

    JERROM ABAINZA
    The defendant appealed a lower court ruling that ordered him to repay the plaintiff P516 plus interest for breaching a verbal agreement to marry their children. The agreement stipulated that the plaintiff would pay the defendant P500 upon the marriage of their son and daughter, plus P16 as a "hansel". However, the defendant's daughter married someone else. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the verbal agreement was valid and binding despite not being written, as oral contracts are not inherently invalid under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JORGE DOMALAGAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS BOLIFER, defendant-appellant.

    1916-02-08 | G.R. No. 8166

    DECISION Appeal

    JOHNSON, J.: VII. Marriage – Breach of promise to marry

    Facts:

    Domalagan and the defendant entered into a contract with the following terms: (1) Their son Cipriano
    Domalagan and daughter Bonifacia Bolifer will marry; (2) Upon the marriage Domalagan was to pay to
    the defendant the sum of P500. Petitioner comply and pay the sum of P500, together with the further
    sum of P16 "as hansel or token of future marriage” to Bolifer. However, her daughter Bonifacia married
    another man.

    Upon learning the marriage, petitioner demanded the return of the said sum of P516 together with the
    interest and damages because he alleged that he was obliged to sell certain real property belonging to
    him, located in the Province of Bohol, at a great sacrifice.

    The lower court ruled in against the defendant and he was obliged to pay P516 together with the
    interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the 17th of December, 1910, and costs. Hence, this appeal.

    The appellant contends that a contract, such as the one relied upon by the plaintiff, in order to be valid,
    must be reduced to writing pursuant to paragraph 3 of section 335 of the Code of Procedure in Civil
    Actions.

    Issues:

    Whether or not the verbal agreement between Domalagan and Bolifer to marry their children is binding

    Ruling:

    Yes. The verbal agreement is binding. Said section (335) does not render oral contracts invalid. It simply
    provides the method by which the contracts mentioned therein may be proved.

    A contract may be a perfectly valid contract even though it is not clothed with the necessary form
    especially if the parties to an action, during the trial of the cause, make no objection to the admissibility
    of oral evidence. it will be just as binding upon the parties as if it had been reduced to writing.

    For the foregoing reasons we find nothing in the record justifying a reversal or modification of the
    judgment of the lower court based upon either assignment of error. Therefore the judgment of the
    lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

    You might also like