Case Digest (G.R. No. 13438)
Facts:
In Francisco Gutierrez Repide v. Ivar O. Afzelius and Patrocinio R. Afzelius (G.R. No. 13438, November 20, 1918), the plaintiff owned a 2,695.24-square-meter parcel in Manila. In December 1916, the defendants agreed to purchase it for ₱10,000, paying ₱2,000 upon signing and the remaining ₱8,000 in monthly ₱150 installments, secured by mortgage. The plaintiff had the property surveyed, prepared the deed and mortgage, and incurred ₱83.93 in expenses. When the defendants were called to sign on December 28, 1916, they failed to appear. On January 3, 1917, Mrs. Afzelius wrote that business losses had wiped out the advance funds and they could not complete the purchase. The plaintiff then filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to compel the defendants to execute the deed and mortgage and to pay the agreed price. The defendants denied liability and contested damages. The trial court found the contract valid but held that specific performance would be inequitable aCase Digest (G.R. No. 13438)
Facts:
- Parties and Property
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Francisco Gutierrez Repide, owner of a 2,695.24 sqm parcel in Manila.
- Defendants-Appellees: Ivar O. Afzelius and his wife, Patrocinio R. Afzelius.
- Contract Formation and Preparations
- December 1916: Agreement to sell for ₱10,000—₱2,000 down upon signing, ₱8,000 payable in ₱150 monthly installments—secured by mortgage on the property.
- Plaintiff incurred ₱83.93 for survey, deed and mortgage preparation; deed ready December 28, 1916; defendants failed to appear and sign.
- Defendants’ Excuses and Correspondence
- January 3, 1917 letter from Patrocinio: business failure prevented payment of the ₱2,000 down-payment.
- Husband’s testimony: initial funds partly belonged to wife’s sister and were returned; letter served as an excuse.
- Proceedings Below
- Complaint filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila for specific performance—compel signing of deed and mortgage and payment of purchase price.
- Defendants answered with a general denial and argued no damages sustained by plaintiff.
- Trial court denied specific performance as impracticable and inequitable, dismissed complaint without prejudice to other remedies.
Issues:
- Whether under Civil Code article 1279 (and related provisions) a vendor may compel a vendee to specifically perform a contract of sale.
- Whether defendants’ mere pecuniary inability to pay the down-payment constitutes a defense to specific performance.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)