Title
Gaite vs. Fonacier
Case
G.R. No. L-11827
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1961
Fonacier assigned Gaite mining rights; Gaite developed claims, extracted ore, and transferred rights back for P75,000. Fonacier failed to pay P65,000 balance after bond expired, leading to a lawsuit. Court ruled payment was due, no short-delivery of ore.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11827)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Proceedings
    • Plaintiff-Appellee: Fernando A. Gaite; Defendants-Appellants: Isabelo Fonacier, George Krakower, Larap Mines & Smelting Co., Inc., Segundina Vivas, Francisco Dante, Pacifico Escandor, Fernando Ty.
    • Case filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila; appeal to the Supreme Court due to aggregate claims exceeding ₱200,000.
  • Underlying Transactions
    • September 29, 1952 – Fonacier grants Gaite a power of attorney to explore the “Dawahan Group” iron lode claims on a royalty basis (≥ ₱0.50/ton).
    • March 19, 1954 – Gaite assigns exploitation rights to his proprietorship, Larap Iron Mines, under the same royalty terms.
    • Gaite develops the claims, installs roads and facilities, and extracts an estimated 24,000 metric tons of ore.
  • Revocation and Sale Agreements
    • December 8, 1954 – Fonacier revokes Gaite’s power of attorney; Gaite transfers all his interests (roads, improvements, the Larap name, and 24,000 tons of extracted ore) to Fonacier for ₱75,000 (₱10,000 paid upfront; ₱65,000 to be paid from the first letter of credit or local sale proceeds).
    • Securities: Exhibit A-1 (Fonacier/principal; Larap Mines & stockholders as sureties) and Exhibit B (adds Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co.; liability to attach only upon actual sale and expires December 8, 1955).
    • Simultaneously, Fonacier grants Larap Mines & Smelting Co., Inc. full mining development rights for royalties.
  • Default and Litigation
    • No sale/shipment occurred before Exhibit B’s expiration (Dec. 8, 1955); ₱65,000 unpaid.
    • Gaite demands payment; defendants invoke the unsatisfied “first sale” condition.
    • Trial limited to (a) due date of the ₱65,000 obligation and (b) actual existence of 24,000 tons of ore. Lower court ruled in Gaite’s favor; defendants appealed.

Issues:

  • Nature of the obligation to pay the ₱65,000 balance:
    • Was it subject to a suspensive condition (payment only upon sale/shipment)?
    • Or merely a suspensive period (deferred due date)?
  • Effect of bond expiration on the right to defer payment:
    • Did failure to renew or replace Exhibit B forfeit defendants’ right to the period?
  • Existence and quantity of the ore:
    • Were there approximately 24,000 tons in the stockpiles?
    • If less, could appellants claim damages for short-delivery?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.