Araneta vs. Phi. Sugar Estate Dev., Inc 20 SCRA 330/GR L-22558 Art.

1197 Scope

Art. 1197 Petitioner and Respondent entered into a contract of purchase and sale with mortgage whereas P sold a big tract of land to R subject to following conditions: 1) that buyer will build on said land the Sto. Domingo Church and Convent and 2) that seller will construct streets surrounding the land which shall be named Sto. Domingo Avenue R finished the construction of the church will P was unable to finish the construction of the streets because a third party, occupying the middle part thereof, refuse to vacate the same R filed a complaint seeking P to comply with the obligation and/or pay damages in case of failure/refusal RTC and CA decided in favor of R and gave P 2 years to comply with its obligation

Facts

Held 1. Art. 1197 involves two step processes: 1) the Court must first determine that the obligation does not fix period (or that the period is made to depend upon the will of the debtor), but from the nature and the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended (Art 1197 1&2) and 2) the Court must proceed to second step and decide what period was probably contemplated by parties. Even on the assumption that the court should have found out that no reasonable time or period at all had been fixed, the COMPLAINT NOT HAVING SOUGHT THE COURT SHOULD SET A PERIOD, the court could not proceed to do so unless the complaint is amended No basis to support the conclusion that period should be set at two years after finality of judgment, considering that the land was occupied by squatters. Parties must comply with legal processes in evicting the squatters. Reasonable time: at the date all the squatters on affected areas are finally evicted