FLORENTINO v.
ENCARNACION entered into by the parties, neither of whom acted as agent of
Topic: Stipulation in Favor of Third Party; ART. 1311 par. 2;
Petitioner: Florentino
Respondent: Encarnacion
DOCTRINE:
ART. 1311 par. 2. If a contract should contain a stipulation in
favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfillment provided
he communicated his acceptance to the obligor before its
revocation. A mere incidental benefit or interest of a person is
not sufficient. The contracting parties must have clearly and
deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person.
Requisites of stipulation pour autrui:
o The contracting parties by their stipulation must have clearly and
deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person;
o The third person must have communicated his acceptance to the
obligor before its revocation by the oblige or the original parties;
o The stipulation in favor of the third person should be a part, not the
whole, of the contract;
o The favorable stipulation should not be conditioned or
compensated by any kind of obligation whatever; and
o Neither of the contracting parties bears the legal representation or
authorization of the third party for otherwise, the rules on agency
will apply;
Test to be used in determining whether a stipulation constitutes a valid
stipulation pour autrui = intention of the parties as disclosed in their
contract
VOCABULARY:
Stipulation pour autrui (Beneficial stipulation) stipulation in
favor of a third person conferring a clear and deliberate favor
upon him, and which stipulation is merely a part of a contract
the third person, and such third person may demands its
fulfillment provided that he communicates his acceptance to
the obligor before it is revoked.
SHORT ANSWERS:
1. When did the problem start: During the registration of
the Deed/s
2. Who was chasing who: Florentino was chasing
Encarnacion
3. Where does the obligation arise: Deed of
extrajudicial partition
FACTS:
Petitioners-appellants and the petitioners-appellees filed
with CFI an application for the registration under Act 496 of
a parcel of agricultural land located in Ilocos Sur
The application alleges that the applicants are the common
and pro-indiviso owners in fee simple of the said land with
the improvements existing thereon; that tthere is no
mortgage, lien or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever
affecting said land, nor any other person having any estate
or interest thereon, legal or equitable, remainder,
reservation at in expectancy; that applicants had acquired
the aforesaid land thru and by inheritance from their
predecessors in interest, their aunt, Dona Encarnacion
Florentino, and Angel Encarnacion acquired their respective
shares of the land thru purchase from the original heirs,
Jesus, Caridad, Lourdes and Dolores, all surnamed
Singson, on one hand and from Asuncion Florentino on the
other.
 The Court set the application for hearing. Only the Director
of Lands filed an opposition but was later withdrawn so an
order of general default was issued.
The Clerk of Court was commissioned and authorized to
receive the evidence of the applicants and ordered to
submit the same for the Court's proper resolution.
Exhibit O-1 embodied in the deed of extrajudicial partition
(Exhibit O), which states that with respect to the land
situated in Barrio Lubong, Dacquel, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur,
the fruits thereof shall serve to defray the religious
expenses, was the source of contention in this case
(Spanish text). Florentino wanted to include Exhibit O-1 on
the title but the Encarnacions opposed and subsequently
withdrawn their application on their shares, which was
opposed by the former.
CFI: The self-imposed arrangement in favor of the Church is a
simple donation, but is void since the donee has not accepted
the donation and Salvador Encarnacion, Jr. and Angel
Encarnacion had not made any oral or written grant at all so
the court allowed the religious expenses to be made and
entered on the undivided shares, interests and participations
of all the applicants in this case, except that of Salvador
Encarnacion, Sr., Salvador Encarnacion, Jr. and Angel
Encarnacion."
ISSUE:
Whether or not the stipulation in the case at bar constitutes a
stipulation pour autrui
HELD:
Yes.
The contract must bind both parties, based on the principles
(1) that obligation wising from contracts have the force of law
between the contracting parties; and (2) that them must be
mutuality between the parties band on their essential equality,
to which is repugnant to have one party bound by the contract
leaving the other free therefrom.The stipulation (Exhibit O-1) is
part of an extrajudicial partition (Exh. O) duly agreed and
signed by the parties, hence the same must bind the
contracting parties thereto and its validity or compliance
cannot be left to the will of one of them.
The said stipulation is a stipulation pour autrui. A stipulation
pour autrui is a stipulation in favor of a third person conferring
a clear and deliberate favor upon him, and which stipulation is
merely a part of a contract entered into by the parties, neither
of whom acted as agent of the third person, and such third
person may demand its fulfillment provided that he
communicates his acceptance to the obligor before it is
revoked. The evidence on record shows that the true intent of
the parties is to confer a direct and material benefit upon the
Church. While a stipulation in favor of a third person has no
binding effect in itself before its acceptance by the party
favored, the law does not provide when the third person must
make his acceptance. As a rule, there is no time limit; such
third person has all the time until the stipulation is revoked.
Here, We find that the Church accepted (implicitly) the
stipulation in its favor before it is sought to be revoked by
some of the co-owners.