Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1930 > December 1930 Decisions > G.R. No. 32336 December 20, 1930 - JULIO C. ABELLA v. GUILLERMO B. FRANCISCO

055 Phil 447:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 32336. December 20, 1930.]

JULIO C. ABELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUILLERMO B. FRANCISCO, Defendant-Appellee.

Antonio T. Carrascoso jr., for Appellant.

Camus & Delgado for Mooney.

SYLLABUS


1. CONTRACT OF SALE; PERIOD FOR PAYMENT OF SELLING PRICE; RESOLUTION OF CONTRACT. — Having agreed that the selling price (even supposing it was a contract of sale) would be paid not later than December, 1928, and in view of the fact that the vendor executed said contract in order to pay off with the proceeds thereof certain obligations which fell due in the same month of December, it is held that the time fixed for the payment of the selling price was essential in the transaction, and, therefore, the vendor, under article 1124 of the Civil Code, is entitled to resolve the contract for failure to pay the price within the time specified.


D E C I S I O N


AVANCEÑA, C.J. :


Defendant Guillermo B. Francisco purchased from the Government on installments, lots 937 to 945 of the Tala Estate in Novaliches, Caloocan, Rizal. He was in arrears for some of these installments. On the 31st of October, 1928, he signed the following document:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"MANILA, October 31, 1928

"Received from Mr. Julio C. Abella the amount of five hundred pesos (500), payment on account of lots Nos. 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, and 945 of the Tala Estate, barrio of Novaliches, Caloocan, Rizal, containing an area of about 221 hectares, at the rate of one hundred pesos (P100) per hectare, the balance being due on or before the fifteenth day of December, 1928, extendible fifteen days thereafter. (Sgd.) G. B. FRANCISCO — P500 — Phone 67125."cralaw virtua1aw library

After having made this agreement, the plaintiff proposed the sale of these lots at a higher price to George C. Sellner, collecting P10,000 on account thereof on December 29, 1928.

Besides the P500 which, according to the instrument quoted above, the plaintiff paid, he made another payment of P415.31 on November 13, 1928, upon demand made by the defendant. On December 27th of the same year, the defendant, being in the Province of Cebu, wrote to Roman Mabanta of this City of Manila, attaching a power of attorney authorizing him to sign in behalf of the defendant all the documents required by the Bureau of Lands for the transfer of the lots to the plaintiff. In that letter the defendant instructed Roman Mabanta, in the event that the plaintiff failed to pay the remainder of the selling price, to inform him that the option would be considered cancelled, and to return to him the amount of P915.31 already delivered. On January 3, 1929, Mabanta notified the plaintiff that he had received the power of attorney to sign the deed of conveyance of the lots to him, and that he was willing go execute the proper deed of sale upon payment of the balance due. The plaintiff asked for a few days’ time, but Mabanta, following the instructions he had received from the defendant, only gave him until the 5th of that month. The plaintiff did not pay the rest of the price on the 5th of January, but on the 9th of the month attempted to do so; Mabanta, however, refused to accept it, and gave him to understand that he regarded the contract as rescinded. On the same day, Mabanta returned by check the sum of P915.31 which the plaintiff had paid.

The plaintiff brought this action to compel the defendant to execute the deed of sale of the lots in question, upon receipt of the balance of the price, and asks that he be judicially declared the owner of said lots and that the defendant be ordered to deliver them to him.

The court below absolved the defendant from the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed.

In rendering that judgment, the court relied on the fact that the plaintiff had failed to pay the price of the lots within the stipulated time; and that since the contract between plaintiff and defendant was an option for the purchase of the lots, time was an essential element in it.

It is to be noted that in the document signed by the defendant, the 15th of December was fixed as the date, extendible for fifteen days, for the payment by the plaintiff of the balance of the selling price. It has been admitted that the plaintiff did not offer to complete the payment until January 9, 1929. He contends that Mabanta, as attorney-in-fact for the defendant in this transaction, granted him an extension of time until the 9th of January. But Mabanta has stated that he only extended the time until the 5th of that month. Mabanta’s testimony on this point is corroborated by that of Paz Vicente and by the plaintiff’s own admission to Narciso Javier that his option to purchase those lots expired on January 5, 1929.

In holding that the period was an essential element of the transaction between plaintiff and defendant, the trial court considered that the contract in question was an option for the purchase that the contract in question was an option for the purchase of the lots, and that in an agreement of this nature the period is deemed essential. The opinion of the court is divided upon the question of whether the agreement was an option or a sale, but even supposing it was a sale, the court holds that time was an essential element in the transaction. The defendant wanted to sell those lots to the plaintiff in order to pay off certain obligation which fell due in the month of December, 1928. The time fixed for the payment of the price was therefore essential for the defendant, and this view in borne out by his letter to his representative Mabanta instructing him to consider the contract rescinded if the price was not completed in time. In accordance with article 1124 of the Civil Code, the defendant is entitled to resolve the contract for failure to pay the price within the time specified.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1930 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 33494 December 2, 1930 - SERAPIA OCHOA v. SERAFIN DE LEON

    055 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 32776 December 4, 1930 - SEVERO DOMINGO v. SANTOS ET., AL.

    055 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 33537 December 5, 1930 - ESCUDERO ELEC. SERVICE CO. v. MARGARITA ROXAS Y AYALA VIUDA DE SORIANO

    055 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 33113 December 13, 1930 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. LUCIO ECHAUS

    055 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. 33131 December 13, 1930 - EMILIO GONZALEZ LA O v. YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INS., CO.

    055 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 33304 December 13, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTE SOTELO

    055 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 33399 December 13, 1930 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO. v. LAGUNA-TAYABAS BUS CO.

    055 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 34450 December 13, 1930 - BENITO DE LOS REYES v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS

    055 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 34484 December 13, 1930 - FERNANDO MAULIT v. DOMINGO SAMONTE

    055 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 33584 December 15, 1930 - MARCELO ENRIQUEZ v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    055 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 32663 December 15, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO FRANCISCO

    055 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. 34616 December 15, 1930 - HERMENEGILDO MAKAPAGAL v. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA

    055 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 33434 December 16, 1930 - MUNICIPALITY OF TARLAC v. TOMAS BESA

    055 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 33380 December 17, 1930 - TEODORA ASTUDILLO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    055 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 33463 December 18, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO BORINAGA

    055 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 33196 December 19, 1930 - TAN SENGUAN & CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    055 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 32336 December 20, 1930 - JULIO C. ABELLA v. GUILLERMO B. FRANCISCO

    055 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 32443 December 20, 1930 - INOCENTA RAMAS VIUDA DE PENALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    055 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 32465 December 20, 1930 - LA SOCIEDAD DALISAY v. JANUARIO DE LOS REYES

    055 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 32629 December 20, 1930 - LUIS TORIBIO v. JULIAN DECASA

    055 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 33318 December 20, 1930 - SMITH v. MUNICIPALITY OF ZAMBOANGA

    055 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 33365 December 20, 1930 - TEOPISTA DOLAR v. FIDEL DIANCIN

    055 Phil 479

  • G.R. Nos. 33393-33398 December 20, 1930 - LI TECK SAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    055 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 34539 December 20, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    055 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 32226 December 29, 1930 - ESTANISLAO REYES v. SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ

    055 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 32260 December 29, 1930 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PABLO ROCHA

    055 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 32433 December 29, 1930 - FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN v. CRISANTO DE LA FUENTE

    055 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 32471 December 29, 1930 - SEVERINO JAYME v. JUAN D. SALVADOR

    055 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 32598 December 29, 1930 - MARTIN GONZALEZ v. SISENANDO TURLA

    055 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 32640 December 29, 1930 - WALTER A. SMITH & CO. v. CADWALLADER GIBSON LUMBER CO.

    055 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 32906 December 29, 1930 - ADORACION ROSALES DE ECHAUS ET AL. v. MARIA GAN

    055 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 32945 December 29, 1930 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. WALTER A. SMITH & CO.

    055 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 33176 December 29, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO MARIÑO

    055 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 33646 December 29, 1930 - PHILIPPINE LAND IMPROVEMENT CO. v. SIMEON BLAS

    055 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 33654 December 29, 1930 - KABANKALAN SUGAR CO. v. JOSEFA PACHECO

    055 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 34428 December 29, 1930 - BALTAZAR MORALES v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    055 Phil 565