Rodrigo Enriquez, Aurea Soriano de

Dizon and Urbano Dizon, Jr., plaintiffs-

appellants,
Vs.
Socorro A. Ramos, defendant-appellee.
G.R. No. L-23616 September 30, 1976
 PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLIED IN THE CASE
PRESENTED
Section 4 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. If

two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal
of the others. (4a)
 FACTS OF THE CASE:

Facts: On November 24, 1958 Enriquez and spouses Dizon sold to Ramos 20
subdivision lots in Quezon City for the sum of P235,056 of which only P35,056 had
been paid. The balance of P200,000 was to be liquidated within 2 years from the
date of the execution of the deed of sale, with interest at 6% for the 1st year and
12% thereafter until fully paid. To secure the payment of that balance, Ramos
executed in the same document a deed of mortgage in favor of the vendors on
several parcels of land variously situated in Quezon City, Pampanga and Bulacan.
The deed of mortgage embodies certain stipulations which Ramos invoked. But
according to the appellants the defendant violated the terms of their agreement in
the following respects:
The defendant refuse to pay the sum of P200,000 within the stipulated period.
The mortgage on Bulacan property was never registered and,
The realty tax for 1959 on the lots mortgage were not paid by the defendant.

Ramos admit that she has not paid the realty taxes and has not registered the
mortgage on Bulacan property but argues that it was a minor ones and still her
obligation to pay the sum of P200,000 has not arisen as no previous notice and
demand for payment has been made and according to her the road is not
completed because the appellants have not yet planted trees nor put up water
facilities as required by the ordinance.
 FACTS OF THE CASE:

The court held that the non-payment of 1959 realty taxes as well as the non-
registration of the mortgaged on Bulacan estate by the defendant were minor
matters. On the issue of the completion of road the appellant adduced the
testimonies of 2 witnesses that the road was completed on May 9, 1960 in
accordance with the ordinances of Quezon City and there is nothing in Ordinance
2969 which would indicate that a street may be considered completed with water
facilities are built on the subdivision and these activities are definitely segregable.
As to be alleged lack of previous notice completion and demand for payment, the
filling of the case is sufficient notice to the defendant of the completion of the roads
in question and of the appellees desire to be paid the purchase price of the
questioned lots.
 ISSUE PRESENTED:

Whether or not Ramos should pay her balance to

Enriquez and spouses Dizon even though she is
not yet fully satisfied with her demand?
 SUPREME COURT DECISION:
Ruling: Yes, the effect of such demand retroacts to the day of the constitution of
the defendant obligation as it was stated in Art. 1187 provides that THE
EEFECTS OF A CONDITIONAL OBLIGATION TO GIVE, ONCE THE
CONDITION HAS BEEN FULFILLED, SHALL RETROACT TO THE DAY OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE OBLIGATION. her demand on the road is
already considered completed and the filling of the case against her is sufficient
notice to her therefore she is obligated to pay her balance of P200,000 to the
appellants within 2 years from the date the roads in question are completed.