In Viewmaster Construction Corporation v. Allen C. Roxas, et al., the Supreme Court addressed the enforceability of a verbal agreement concerning the sale of shares and a joint venture for property development. The Court ruled that the verbal agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because it involved transactions not performable within one year and the sale of goods exceeding P500, lacking the required written memorandum. Additionally, the Court found no basis for an implied trust, as the funds used to acquire the property did not originate from the party claiming to be the beneficiary. This decision highlights the importance of written contracts in significant business dealings to ensure legal enforceability and protect the interests of all parties involved.

Verbal Promises vs. Written Contracts: Can a Handshake Deal Secure a Multi-Million Peso Investment?

The case originated from a complaint filed by Viewmaster Construction Corporation against Allen C. Roxas, State Investment Trust, Inc., Northeast Land Development, Inc., and State Properties Corporation. Viewmaster claimed that it had agreed to act as a guarantor for a loan obtained by Roxas from First Metro Investments, Inc. (FMIC). This guaranty was allegedly conditioned on Roxas selling 50% of his shares in State Investment to Viewmaster and entering into a joint venture to develop certain properties. However, this agreement was never put into writing.

When Roxas gained control of State Investment but failed to honor the verbal agreement, Viewmaster filed a suit for specific performance, enforcement of implied trust, and damages. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claim was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and that the complaint stated no cause of action. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint but later reconsidered and granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Viewmaster. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial court’s decision, leading Viewmaster to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the verbal agreement between Viewmaster and Roxas was enforceable. The Court examined the applicability of the Statute of Frauds, which requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. Article 1403 of the New Civil Code states:

“Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:

(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents:

(a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof;

(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things in action, at a price not less than five hundred pesos, unless the buyer accept and receive part of such goods and chattels, or the evidences, or some of them, of such things in action, or pay at the time some part of the purchase money; but when a sale is made by auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his sales book, at the time of the sale, of the amount and kind of property sold, terms of sale, price, names of the purchasers and person on whose account the sale is made, it is a sufficient memorandum;”

The Court found that the verbal agreement fell squarely within the ambit of the Statute of Frauds. The agreement involved the sale of shares, which undoubtedly exceeded five hundred pesos, and it was not intended to be performed within one year. As such, the absence of a written memorandum rendered the agreement unenforceable.

Further, the Court addressed Viewmaster’s contention that an implied trust existed. Viewmaster argued that Roxas held 50% of his shares in State Investment in trust for Viewmaster, based on Article 1448 of the New Civil Code. This provision states:

“Art. 1448. There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale, no trust is implied by law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child.”

The Supreme Court clarified that for Article 1448 to apply, the price must be paid by one party for the purpose of benefiting from the property held by another. In this case, the funds used by Roxas to acquire the controlling interest in State Investment came from a loan from FMIC, not from Viewmaster. Viewmaster merely acted as a guarantor for the loan. The Court emphasized that an implied trust cannot arise if the funds used by the alleged trustee originated from a loan. The Court supported its ruling by quoting legal scholars:

Another exception is that in which an actual contrary intention is proved. Thus, where a transfer of property is made to one person and the purchase price is advanced by another as a loan to the transferee, a resulting trust does not arise. xxx’ (IV Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines [1991], p. 679)

The Court also cited American jurisprudence, stating:

The general rule is that the use of borrowed money in making a purchase does not raise a resulting trust in favor of the lender, even where the money is loaned to enable the borrower to purchase the property in question and the borrower promises, but fails, to execute a mortgage on the property after it is purchased, to secure the loan. Nor does the use of money given to one for the purchase of the property raises a resulting trust in the property in favor of the donor’ (76 AmJur 2d. pp. 440-441).

The Court rejected Viewmaster’s argument that its role as guarantor constituted the equitable consideration for the transaction. The consideration or price, as referred to in Article 1448, pertains to the funds, goods, or services for which the trust property is conveyed. In this instance, the money came from FMIC’s loan to Roxas, not from Viewmaster’s guaranty. Consequently, no implied trust could have arisen in favor of Viewmaster over the shares of stock or the subject lots.

The Court also briefly touched upon the issue of the trial judge’s inhibition, deeming it moot and academic given the dismissal of the complaint. However, the Court cited Aleria, Jr. vs. Velez, and Seveses vs. Court of Appeals, to reiterate the principle that a judge’s impartiality must be compromised by an extrajudicial source to warrant inhibition. Opinions formed during judicial proceedings, based on evidence presented, do not, in themselves, prove bias or prejudice.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether a verbal agreement for the sale of shares and a joint venture, and the claim of an implied trust, were enforceable under the Statute of Frauds and the principles of trust law.
What is the Statute of Frauds?	The Statute of Frauds requires certain types of contracts, such as those not performable within one year or involving the sale of goods above a certain value, to be in writing to be enforceable. This prevents fraudulent claims based on verbal agreements.
What is an implied trust?	An implied trust arises by operation of law when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The person holding the legal title is the trustee, and the person who paid the price is the beneficiary.
Why was the verbal agreement unenforceable in this case?	The verbal agreement was unenforceable because it fell under the Statute of Frauds, involving transactions not performable within one year and the sale of goods exceeding P500, without any written memorandum. This lack of written evidence made it impossible to enforce the agreement in court.
Why did the court reject the claim of an implied trust?	The court rejected the implied trust claim because the funds used to acquire the property did not come from Viewmaster, the party claiming to be the beneficiary, but from a loan provided by FMIC to Roxas. An implied trust requires that the party claiming to be the beneficiary must have provided the funds for the property’s acquisition.
What was Viewmaster’s role in the transaction?	Viewmaster acted as a guarantor for the loan obtained by Roxas from FMIC. The court ruled that this role did not establish a basis for an implied trust, as Viewmaster did not provide the funds for the acquisition of the shares.
What is the significance of having contracts in writing?	Having contracts in writing ensures clarity, provides concrete evidence of the agreement’s terms, and protects the interests of all parties involved. Written contracts are crucial for legal enforceability and dispute resolution.
What was the court’s decision regarding the trial judge’s inhibition?	The court deemed the issue of the trial judge’s inhibition moot and academic since the complaint was dismissed. However, it emphasized that a judge’s impartiality must be compromised by an extrajudicial source to warrant inhibition.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Viewmaster Construction Corporation v. Allen C. Roxas, et al. serves as a potent reminder of the necessity of formalizing significant business agreements in writing. Verbal promises, no matter how sincere, can crumble under the weight of the Statute of Frauds. Furthermore, the case clarifies the specific conditions required for an implied trust to arise, emphasizing the direct link between the funds used and the party claiming beneficial interest. This ruling reinforces the principle that clear, written contracts are the cornerstone of secure and enforceable business transactions, and lack of such documentation can be detrimental to successful business relationships.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: VIEWMASTER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS. ALLEN C. ROXAS, STATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC., NORTHEAST LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND STATE PROPERTIES CORPORATION, G.R. No. 133576, July 13, 2000