Case Digest (G.R. No. 32336)
Facts:
Julio C. Abella v. Guillermo B. Francisco, G.R. No. 32336, December 20, 1930, the Supreme Court En Banc, Avanceaa, C.J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellant Julio C. Abella sought specific performance of an agreement from defendant-appellee Guillermo B. Francisco to convey several lots (Nos. 937–945) of the Tala Estate in Novaliches, Caloocan, Rizal, which Francisco had purchased from the Government on installment. Francisco was behind in some installment payments when, on October 31, 1928, he executed a written instrument acknowledging receipt of P500 from Abella as payment on those lots and fixing the balance “due on or before the fifteenth day of December, 1928, extendible fifteen days thereafter.”
Following that instrument, Abella made an additional payment of P415.31 on November 13, 1928, at Francisco’s demand. On December 27, 1928, while in Cebu, Francisco sent a letter to his Manila representative, Roman Mabanta, enclosing a power of attorney authorizing Mabanta to sign the Bureau of Lands transfer documents on Francisco’s behalf; Francisco instructed Mabanta that if Abella failed to pay the remainder on time, the option would be considered cancelled and the amounts already paid (P915.31) were to be returned.
On January 3, 1929 Mabanta told Abella that he could execute the deed upon payment of the balance; Mabanta allowed Abella only until January 5 to complete payment. Abella failed to pay by January 5 and attempted payment on January 9, 1929, but Mabanta refused to accept it and returned P915.31 by check that same day, having acted under Francisco’s instructions. Abella then sued to compel execution of the deed, to be declared owner, and to recover delivery of the lots.
The trial court (the court below) dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiff failed to pay...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was time of the essence in the agreement so that failure to pay by the extended deadline entitled the seller to treat the contract as rescinded?
- Did the trial court correctly absolve the defendant from the complaint and refuse specific performance given the facts and the seller’s instr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)