Asturias Sugar Central, Inc., Recurrente, Contra Gloria Montinola, Como Administradora Especial De La Testamentaria De Ruperto Montinola Y Administradora Del Abintestato De Basa B. De Montinola, Recurrida

Summary

This case involves a dispute over a verbal sugar milling contract between Asturias Sugar Central and the Montinola estate. The parties had agreed in 1931-1932 that the Central would mill the respondents' sugarcane in exchange for giving them 55% of resulting sugar plus 6% as transport bonus. After the respondents moved to another central due to insufficient compensation, US and Philippine laws in 1934 mandated specific milling locations, forcing resumption of the original relationship in 1935-1936. When Asturias refused to pay the agreed 6% bonus (P388), claiming the verbal contract was invalid under the Statute of Frauds, the Supreme Court ruled that the contract remained enforceable because it was meant to be performed within one year, was already consummated, and statutory requirements created unavoidable resumption of the contractual relationship. The decision affirmed that obligations arise from both contracts and law.