Case Digest (G.R. No. 1698)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 1698)
Facts:
Julian Borromeo v. Jose Franco y Franco et al., G.R. No. 1698. September 26, 1905, Supreme Court En Banc, Torres, J., writing for the Court.
On April 29, 1902, before Notary Public Jose Maria Rosado y Calvo in Manila, Jose Franco, Cesar Franco, Antonio Franco, Manuel Franco, Soledad Franco, and Catalina Franco (the parties of the first part) and Julian Borromeo y Galan (the party of the second part) executed a written agreement whereby the Francos declared themselves joint owners of two frame houses with nipa roofs in Plaza Recoletos, Cebu, and agreed to sell them to Borromeo for the price of 2,500 pesos Mexican. The instrument described several conditions: the vendors made no metes-and-bounds description for lack of data; they disclaimed any guarantee of title or of the promise to sell; Borromeo was to pay all expenses for the deed and for judicial or extrajudicial proceedings to perfect title and registration; and Borromeo was given six months from the date of the instrument to complete the necessary documents (clause (c)). The instrument also provided that rents from the property during the period would go to Borromeo, who would defray preservation expenses and taxes, and that Borromeo would defray Catalina’s expenses in obtaining judicial authority to sell her minor child’s interest.
On January 7, 1903 Borromeo, through counsel Jose Maria Rosado y Calvo, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance seeking specific performance: that judgment be rendered compelling Jose, Cesar, Manuel, and Catalina Franco (Catalina sued in her own behalf and as guardian for minor children where applicable) to convey the property under the agreement and to pay costs and damages; and that, if the property had been transferred to a third party, a notice of lis pendens be entered in the Cebu Registry of Property. Borromeo alleged he had taken judicial and extrajudicial steps and had borne necessary expenses to complete the papers but that the defendants refused to execute the deed, asserting Borromeo had failed to complete the documents within the six‑month period and that they intended to sell or had sold to another. The record also reflects that Antonio and Soledad Franco later died without wills and without descendants, leaving Catalina as heir.
The defendants answered on January 22, 1903, denying that Borromeo had made the alleged disbursements and insisting that the promise to sell was conditional upon his compliance with the six‑month stipulation; they contended that, having failed the condition, Borromeo could not compel performance. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment on October 5, 1903 (the court below), which was adverse to Borromeo. Borromeo appealed to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court considered the agreement, the contested clause giving Borromeo six months to perfect title, and the statutory framework governing obligations and contracts, and then rendered the decision now under review.
Issues:
- May the vendors refuse to perform the promise to sell on the ground that the purchaser failed to perfect the title papers within the six months stipulated in the contract?
- Is the purchaser entitled to specific performance of the promise to sell under the terms of the April 29, 1902 agreement?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)