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 Summary (G.R. No. 56705)

Procedural History

Gaite sued Fonacier and sureties for unpaid balance of ₱65,000 under a 1954 “Revocation of Power of Attorney and Contract” conveying 24,000 tons (more or less) of extracted ore. The trial court held payment became demandable upon expiration of a surety bond on December 8, 1955, and found that approximately 24,000 tons existed at contract date. Defendants appealed.

Key Dates

September 29, 1952: Power of attorney from Fonacier to Gaite
March 19, 1954: Assignment from Gaite to Larap Iron Mines
December 8, 1954: Revocation agreement (Exhibit A) and two surety bonds (Exhibits A-1, B) executed
December 8, 1955: Expiration of surety bond (Exhibit B)

Applicable Law

1935 Philippine Constitution; New Civil Code (Articles 1198, 1378; rules on obligations with term and sale of specific mass under Articles 1480, 1590)

Facts

  1. Gaite developed the Dawahan Group claims and extracted an estimated 24,000 tons of iron ore.
  2. Fonacier revoked the power of attorney and bought Gaite’s rights—including the ore stockpile—for ₱75,000: ₱10,000 paid upfront, ₱65,000 payable “out of the first letter of credit covering the first shipment of iron ores and/or the first amount derived from the local sale” under two surety bonds.
  3. No sale or shipment occurred by December 8, 1955, and the surety bond with Far Eastern Surety lapsed.
  4. Gaite demanded the ₱65,000 balance; defendants invoked non-fulfillment of the sale/shipment condition and counterclaimed on quantity.

Issue One: Nature of Payment Obligation

Whether the ₱65,000 balance was subject to a suspensive condition (sale or shipment) or merely a deferred term, and whether expiration of the bond forfeited the extended term.

Court’s Analysis on Condition Versus Term

• The contract’s language (“will be paid out of…”) presupposes the existence of an obligation, delaying only its maturity, not its formation.
• Sale on credit is a commutative onerous contract; a suspensive condition must be clearly expressed.
• Allowing a condition precedent would give the buyer discretion to postpone payment indefinitely.
• Ambiguities favor greatest reciprocity of interests (Art. 1378, par. 1); hence a term, not a condition.

Forfeiture of Deferred Payment Term

Under Article 1198(2) and (3), failure to renew or replace the surety bond on its expiry impaired the security and resulted in loss of the extended period. Gaite was entitled to demand payment from December 9, 1955.

Issue Two: Quantity of Iron Ore and Alleged Short-Delivery

Whether the stockpile contained the agreed “24,000 tons, more or less,” and if a short-delivery entitled defendants to damages.

Court’s Analysis on Specific Mass Sale

• The agreement involved a sale of a specific mass at a lump-sum price; no post-agreement weighing was

...continue reading

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