Thursday, July 6, 2023

Case Digest: Modesto Soriano vs Carolina Abalos, et.al. 84 Phil 206

Modesto Soriano vs Carolina Abalos, et.al. 84 Phil 206

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

On March 17, 1938, respondent Juliana Abalos and Carolina Abalos sold the parcel of the land described in the complaint to Felipe Maneclang and Modesto Soriano at the price of P750, with option to repurchase the same "at anytime they have the money." Offer to repurchase was made in December 1941, which could not be carried out because of the war. Felipe Maneclang, in the meantime, ceded all his right to petitioner Modesto Soriano, and in May 1944, offer to repurchase was again made, but Modesto Soriano rejected the offer. Wherefore, vendors consigned the price of P750 with the court and filed a complaint for repurchase.

Juliana Abalos died and was substituted in this case by her heirs Romulo and Florencio, surnamed Manuel. It turned out that the property did not belong to the vendors Carolina and Juliana Abalos alone, but also to their sisters, the intervenors and respondent Mercedes and Encarnacion Abalos. The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan rendered judgment ordering Modesto Soriano to execute a deed of reconveyance in favor, not only of Carolina Abalos and the heirs of Juliana Abalos, but also of the intervenors Mercedes and Encarnacion Abalos; authorizing Modesto Soriano to collect and receive as price for the reconveyance the sum of P750 consigned with the court; and sentencing Modesto Soriano to pay the respondent the sum of P3,200 as the value of the fruits of the land in 1944 obtained by Modesto Soriano. This judgment was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner Modesto Soriano now maintains in this Court that respondent no longer had any right to repurchase the property because, there being no express agreement as to the time within which the repurchase could be made, that time should be, under the first paragraph, article 1508 of the Civil Code, four years which in this case expired on March 17, 1942.

ISSUE

Whether or not the phrase “at any time they have the money” expressly stipulate a time or not.

RULING

Yes, the phrase “at any time they have the money” expressly stipulate a time which is “anytime”.

Under the law (Art 1198), the debtor shall lose every right to make use of the period: (1) When after the obligation has been contracted, he becomes insolvent, unless he gives a guaranty or security for the debt; (2) When he does not furnish to the creditor the guaranties or securities which he has promised; (3) When by his own acts he has impaired said guaranties or securities after their establishment, and when through a fortuitous event they disappear, unless he immediately gives new ones equally satisfactory; (4) When the debtor violates any undertaking, in consideration of which the creditor agreed to the period; and, (5) When the debtor attempts to abscond.

In this case, the stipulation, however, is that the vendors may repurchase the property "at any time they have the money." There is, therefore, a time expressly stipulated, which is "any time." It being, however, an unlimited or indefinite time, under the Civil Code, it cannot exceed ten years. The vendors had ten years within which to repurchase the property and that the period did not expire until March 17, 1948. The offer to repurchase was made in May 1944.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Case Digest: General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC, G.R. No. 178647

  General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC,  G.R. No. 178647,  Februa...