JOSE FLORENDO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ, defendant-appellant.

1911-10-24 | G.R. No. 6565

Facts: Eustaquio P. Foz executed in Manila a contract, ratified before a notary, obligating himself to deliver
his house and lot for a consideration of P6,000 to Jose Florendo. The latter already paid P2,000 of the
purchase prize. In the contract, plaintiff fixed the period of the payment of the prize wherein plaintiff has
to pay the remainder of the prize when he goes to Vigan or if not to pay to the Church wherein he has a
debt and to obtain the title of the subject matter of the sale. Defendant went to Vigan, plaintiff tendered
payment of the remainder of the prize, however, the former refused, saying that the true prize of the sale
recorded in the other instrument was P10,000. As defendant refused payment, plaintiff filed a suit to
comply with the contract of absolute purchase and sale, by delivering to the plaintiff the property sold.

Issue: WON the plaintiff can compel the defendant to deliver his property pursuant to the notarized
contract.

Held: Yes. The contract is valid and effective. From the validity and force of the contract is derived the
obligation on the part of the vendor to deliver the thing sold.

Pursuant to article 1466 of the Civil Code, the vendor shall not be bound to deliver the thing sold, if the
vendee should not have paid the price, or if a period for the payment has not been fixed in the contract.
If in the contract a period has been fixed for the payment, the vendor must deliver the thing sold. In the
contract in question, a period was fixed for the payment:

The said party (the vendee) ---- says the vendor ---- shall pay me the remaining four thousand in Vigan
when I go there at any time during this month or next month.

In case of my being unable to go to Vigan, . . .the said Florendo shall send the remainder (after paying the
vendor's debt to the Church of Vigan) to me here in Manila. In accordance with the first of the said quoted
clauses, the period for payment is when the vendor shall have arrived at Vigan; and if he does not arrive
at Vigan, such period is, according to the second clause, indefinite, the vendee merely taking it upon
himself to send the rest to Manila, after the month of June, 1909, should the vendor not arrive at Vigan.

Pursuant to the contract, it can’t be found that the payment of the prize is a precondition for the delivery
of the thing. There was no need, therefore, of assent on the part of the plaintiff to pay the P4,000, the
remainder of the price, in order to oblige the defendant unconditionally to deliver the property sold. With
still more reason should the defendant be compelled to effect the material delivery of the property, since,
after the lapse of the period for the delivery of the price, the plaintiff hastened to pay it and, on account
of the defendant's refusal to receive it, duly deposited it, in order to avoid the consequences that might
issue from delinquency in the payment of a sum entrusted to him for a fixed period.

It is the material delivery of the property sold which the defendant must make in compliance with the
contract, inasmuch as the formal delivery de jure was made, according to the provisions of article 1462,
2nd paragraph, of the same code.

"When the sale should be made by means of a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent
to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if in said instrument the contrary does not
appear or may be clearly inferred."

As the contrary does not appear nor is to be inferred from the public instrument executed by the
defendant, its execution was really a formal or symbolical delivery of the property sold and authorized
the plaintiff to use the title of ownership as proof that he was thenceforth the owner of the property.