(Jorge) Domalagan v (Carlos) Bolifer

1916
Facts
 Petitioner and defendant entered a contract where upon the marriage of their children, petitioner
would pay defendant P500. Petitioner did so but defendant’s daughter married another.
 Lower court ruled in favor of petitioner for the return of P516 (additional P16 was previously
given as token by petitioner) with interest and costs.
Issue
Whether or not the contract by reason of marriage is valid
Held
Defendant assailed the contract stating that to be valid, it must be written.

 Code of Procedure in Civil Actions Section 335 Par. 3

o agreement unenforceable by action unless the same (or note/memo) is written
o evidence cannot be received without the writing or secondary evidence of its contents
 agreement made upon the consideration of marriage, other than a mutual
promise to marry

SC ruled that the law does not render oral contracts invalid, only that the contract cannot be proven by
evidence provided in the statute. A contract may be valid even without the necessary form.

“If the parties to an action, during the trial of the cause, make no objection to the admissibility of oral
evidence to support contracts like the one in question and permit the contract to be proved, by evidence
other than a writing, it will be just as binding upon the parties as if it had been reduced to writing.

Lower court affirmed.