Title
Borromeo vs. Franco
Case
G.R. No. 1698
Decision Date
Sep 26, 1905
Borromeo sued Francos to enforce a property sale contract; court ruled six-month document completion was incidental, not a condition precedent, obliging Francos to sell.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 1698)

Facts:

Parties Involved

  • Plaintiff and Appellant: Julian Borromeo y Galan.
  • Defendants and Appellees: Jose Franco y Franco, Cesar Franco, Antonio Franco, Manuel Franco, Soledad Franco, and Catalina Franco (the latter acting on behalf of her minor child, Concepcion Franco).

Contract Details

On April 29, 1902, the Franco family (defendants) and Julian Borromeo (plaintiff) entered into a contract before a notary public, Jose Maria Rosado y Calvo. The key terms of the contract were:

  1. The Francos declared themselves joint owners of two frame houses with nipa roofs located in Plaza Recoletos, Cebu.
  2. The property was free from liens or encumbrances.
  3. The Francos agreed to sell the property to Borromeo for 2,500 pesos (Mexican currency), payable upon the execution of the final deed of sale.
  4. Borromeo was responsible for all expenses related to the execution of the deed, judicial and extrajudicial proceedings, and the inscription of the property in the Registry of Property.
  5. Borromeo was given six months to complete the necessary documents and papers related to the property.
  6. Borromeo would receive any rent from the property and would cover preservation, repair, taxes, and other expenses.
  7. The Francos did not guarantee the title or the promise to sell.
  8. Borromeo would cover Catalina Franco’s expenses in obtaining judicial authority to sell her minor child’s interest in the property.

Dispute

On January 7, 1903, Borromeo filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance, seeking to compel the Francos to sell the property under the terms of the April 29, 1902, agreement. Borromeo alleged that he had taken steps to complete the necessary documents but was unable to do so within the six-month period. He also claimed that the Francos refused to execute the deed and intended to sell the property to another party.

The Francos argued that Borromeo failed to comply with the condition of completing the documents within six months, which they claimed was a condition precedent to the sale. They also denied that Borromeo had incurred any expenses related to the property.

Issue:

  1. Whether the six-month period for Borromeo to complete the documents was a condition precedent to the sale or merely an incidental stipulation.
  2. Whether the Francos could refuse to execute the deed of sale due to Borromeo’s failure to complete the documents within the stipulated time.
  3. Whether the contract was enforceable despite Borromeo’s failure to perfect the title papers within the six-month period.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.