Villegas vs Capistrano, 9 Phil 416, G.R. No. L-3936, December 21, 1907.
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
On February 13, 1906, the plaintiff sold a
piece of real property to the defendant under a contract that included the
following condition: "If, within three months, specifically until May 13,
1906, I return the sum of one thousand pesos to Mr. Capistrano, this deed will
be considered null and void."
On May 5, 1906, while the plaintiff was in
Cebu, they requested Smith, Bell & Co. to instruct their agent, Kauffman,
in Cagayan, to pay the defendant one thousand pesos in order to repurchase the
property in the plaintiff's name. Smith, Bell & Co. issued the necessary
instructions to Kauffman, who received them on May 8.
On May 13, Kauffman went to the defendant's
residence in Cagayan to proceed with the repurchase but did not find the
defendant there. Kauffman informed the defendant's wife that he was acting as
the plaintiff's agent and had the money to repurchase the land according to the
terms of the contract. However, the defendant's wife stated that she lacked the
authority to proceed with the transaction and promised to inform her husband
upon his return. She fulfilled her promise the following day.
On May 15, one of Kauffman's clerks offered
the money to the defendant directly, but the defendant refused to accept it, claiming
that Kauffman had no authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff.
On May 18, Kauffman had a personal meeting
with the defendant and repeated the offer, which the defendant again declined
based on the aforementioned lack of authority. Subsequently, the plaintiff sent
a telegram to the defendant inquiring if the money had been paid, to which the
defendant replied negatively. Another offer to pay the money was made after
receiving the plaintiff's telegram, but the defendant rejected it, asserting that
the period for repurchasing had already elapsed.
Between that time and June 25, 1906, the
plaintiff made several attempts to resolve the matter through personal meetings
with the defendant, but no resolution was reached. On June 25, Kauffman, acting
as the plaintiff's agent, deposited one thousand pesos with the clerk of the
Court of First Instance, and the plaintiff initiated legal proceedings at that
point.
ISSUE
Whether or not consignation is needed.
RULING
No.
This case does not involve any debt payment or
obligation owed by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant does not have
any valid legal claim or right to take action against the plaintiff. Instead,
the plaintiff has a right to repurchase the specific property in question. The
relevant legal principles in this case pertain to contracts of purchase and
sale.
Consignation is not necessary in this case, as
it typically applies to the deposit of payment for debts. The deposit of the
purchase price is not required to compel the purchaser (the defendant) to
proceed with the resale if they refuse to accept the money.
The reason for this is that the rules and
regulations concerning consignation solely apply to debts. In this particular
situation, the plaintiff is not a debtor of the defendant because the plaintiff
has the freedom to decide whether to repurchase the property or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment