Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1955 > November 1955 Decisions > G.R. No. L-8024 November 29, 1955 - EUSEBIO DE LA CRUZ v. APOLONIO LEGASPI

098 Phil 43:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-8024. November 29, 1955.]

EUSEBIO DE LA CRUZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. APOLONIO LEGASPI and CONCORDIA SAMPEROY, Defendants-Appellants.

Jose A. Fornier for Appellants.

Ramor Maza for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. SALES; CONSIDERATION; NON-PAYMENT OF PRICE DOES NOT CONVERT INTO "NUDUM PACTUM." — In the sale of real property, the subsequent non-payment of the price at the time agreed upon does not convert the contract into one without cause or consideration: a nudum pactum. The situation is rather one in which there is failure to pay the consideration, with its resultant consequences.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; VENDOR’S REMEDY. — The vendor’s remedy in such a case is generally to demand legal interest for the delay or to demand rescission in court.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; AUTOMATIC RESCISSION; VENDEE MAY ENFORCE CONTRACT BEFORE DEMAND FOR RESCISSION IS MADE UPON HIM. — Even if the contract of sale expressly provides for "automatic rescission upon failure to pay the price" the vendee may enforce the contract even after the expiration of the period but before demand for rescission has been made upon him either by suit or by notarial act.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


In the Court of First Instance of Antique, in November, 1950, Eusebio de la Cruz sued Apolonio Legaspi and his wife to compel delivery of the parcel of land they bad sold to him in December 1949. The complaint alleged the execution of the contract, the terms thereof, the refusal of defendants to accept payment of the purchase price of P450 which he had tendered, and undue retention of the realty.

The defendants, in their answer, admitted the sale and the price; but they alleged that before the document (of sale) "was made, the plaintiff agreed to pay the defendants the amount of P450 right after the document is executed that very day December 5, 1949, but after the document was signed and ratified by the Notary Public and after the plaintiff has taken the original of the said document, the said plaintiff refused to pay the sum of P450 which is the purchase price of the said land in question." They asserted that for lack of consideration and for deceit, the document of sale should be annulled.

Plaintiff’s next move was a petition for judgment on the pleadings, contending that the allegations of the answer gave the defendants no excuse to retain the property, rejecting the price.

Joining the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the defendants maintained that the sale should be annulled pursuant to their answer’s allegations.

The Honorable F. Imperial Reyes, Judge, rendered judgment (a) ordering plaintiff to pay the price of P450 to defendants; (b) ordering the latter to receive such price and immediately after such receipt, to deliver possession of the property to plaintiff.

Having failed in a motion to reconsider, defendants appealed in due time. The seven errors assigned in their printed brief, assail the correctness of the judgment, maintaining two principal propositions, namely: (1) the trial judge erroneously disregarded their allegations, in their answer, of non-payment of the price, as hereinbefore quoted; (2) such allegations which must be deemed admitted by plaintiff when he moved for judgment on the pleadings — established a good defense, because the contract was without consideration, and was resolved by plaintiff’s failure to pay the price "right after the document was executed."cralaw virtua1aw library

As to the first proposition, the decision does not say so, but there is no reason to doubt that as requested in the plaintiff’s motion, His Honor considered the allegations made both in the complaint and in the answer. However, he found that defendants’ allegations constituted no defense. He read the law correctly, as we shall forthwith explain.

On the second proposition, appellants rightly say that the Civil Code — not the New Civil Code — regulates the transaction, which occurred in 1949. Yet they err in the assertion that as plaintiff failed to pay the price after the execution of the document of sale as agreed previously, the contract became null and void for lack of consideration. It cannot be denied that when the document was signed the cause or consideration existed: P450. The document specifically said so; and such was undoubtedly the agreement. Subsequent non- payment of the price at the time agreed upon did not convert the contract into one without cause or consideration: a nudum pactum. (Levy v. Johnson, 4 Phil. 650; Puato v. Mendoza, 64 Phil, 457.) The situation was rather one in which there is failure to pay the consideration, with its resultant consequences. In other words, when after the notarization of the contract, plaintiff failed to hand the money to defendants, as he previously promised, there was default on his part at most, and defendants’ right was to demand interest — legal interest — for the delay, pursuant to article 1501 (3) of the Civil Code (Villaruel v. Tan King, 43 Phil. 251), or to demand rescission in court. (Escueta v. Pardo, 42 Off. Gaz. 2759; Cortes v. Bibaño, 41 Phil. 298.) Such failure, however, did not ipso facto resolve the contract, no stipulation to that effect having been alleged. (Cf. Warner Barnes & Co. v. Inza, 43 Phil., 505.) Neither was there any agreement nor allegation that payment on time was essential. (Cf. Abella v. Francisco, 55 Phil., 447; Berg v. Magdalena Estate, 92 Phil., 110.

Indeed, even if the contract of sale here in question had expressly provided for "automatic rescission upon failure to pay the price," the trial judge could allow plaintiff to enforce the contract, as the judgment does, in effect because defendants had not made a previous demand on him, by suit or notarial act.

"In the sale of real property, even though it may have been stipulated that in default of the price within the time agreed upon, the resolution of the contract shall take place ipso facto, the vendee may pay even after the expiration of the period, at any time before demand has been made upon him either by suit or by notarial act. After such demand has been made the judge cannot grant him further time." (Art. 1504 Civil Code.)

By the way, this previous demand, Manresa explains, is a demand for rescission. (Manresa Civil Code, Vol. 10, p. 288, 2d Ed.; Villaruel v. Tan King, 43 Phil. 251.)

The appealed judgment will therefore be affirmed, with costs against appellants. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





November-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6476 November 18, 1955 - FRANCISCO DE BORJA v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL.

    097 Phil 872

  • G.R. No. L-7745 November 18, 1955 - CANDIDA SEVILLA, ET AL. v. CONCORDIA DE LOS ANGELES

    097 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-8030 November 18, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABRAHAM JARAMILLA

    097 Phil 880

  • G.R. No. L-8034 November 18, 1955 - CORNELIA A. DE GILLACO, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    097 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-5949 November 19, 1955 - TANG HO, ET AL. v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-8543 November 22, 1955 - CLARO MESIAS v. CITY MAYOR DOMINADOR J. JOVER, ET AL.

    097 Phil 899

  • G.R. Nos. L-7742-43 November 23, 1955 - QUEZON INSTITUTE v. CELSO A. VELASCO, ET AL.

    097 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-7855 November 23, 1955 - LEONIDES S. ASUNCION, ET AL. v. CELESTINO DE LA CRUZ

    097 Phil 910

  • G.R. No. L-7785 November 25, 1955 - CHANG YUNG FA, ET AL. v. HON. ROBERTO A. GIANZON, ET AL.

    097 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7667 November 28, 1955 - CHERIE PALILEO v. BEATRIZ COSIO

    097 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-8229 November 28, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM J. POMEROY, ET AL.

    097 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-9181 November 28, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

    097 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-5746 November 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN JUMAUAN

    098 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6989 November 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO LINGAD Y SANTOS

    098 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-7033 November 29, 1955 - CHUNG BEN v. CO BUN KIM

    098 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-7228 November 29, 1955 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    098 Phil 17

  • G.R. Nos. L-7323-24 November 29, 1955 - CELEDONIO SANTOS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    098 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. L-7747 November 29, 1955 - NIEVES TINIO v. GREGORIO FRANCES

    098 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-7766 November 29, 1955 - PAZ NERI SAN JOSE v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    098 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-7929 November 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO GAITE

    098 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-8024 November 29, 1955 - EUSEBIO DE LA CRUZ v. APOLONIO LEGASPI

    098 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-8042 November 29, 1955 - WORLD WIDE INSURANCE & SURETY CO. v. GONZALO L. MANUEL

    098 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-8088 November 29, 1955 - ROSITA VELOSO DE OLAYVAR v. ARISTOTELES OLAYVAR

    098 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-8262 November 29, 1955 - TEODORO OSORIO v. TRANQUILINO TAN JONGKO and PE BON UY

    098 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. L-8380 November 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE L. DIPAY

    098 Phil 59