Title
Gonzales vs. Lim
Case
G.R. No. 130403
Decision Date
Jul 30, 2007
Petitioner sold Motown shares to respondents, including lease contracts. Respondents discovered one lease was terminated, negotiated directly with lessor, and waived the condition for payment. SC ruled respondents liable for the balance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197422)

Background of the Case

The case involves an appeal by Francisco Gonzales against Severino C. Lim and Toyota Shaw, Inc. regarding a contractual disagreement stemming from the sale of shares in Motown Vehicles, Inc. The sales agreement included Motown's lease contracts with Tanglaw Realty Inc. However, after closing the sale, Lim and Toyota Shaw discovered that one of these lease contracts had been terminated prior to the sale. This prompted them to seek a judicial declaration to be released from their obligation to pay the outstanding balance of P500,000 due under the agreement.

Legal Claims and Arguments

In their complaint, the respondents claimed that the Gonzaleses misrepresented the status of the lease agreements, alleging that they had implicitly guaranteed that both leases were active and enforceable. The trial court required the Gonzaleses to respond to these claims, wherein Gonzales asserted that the respondents had prior knowledge of the lease termination and had only requested the agreement as a formality to assure Toyota Philippines of the dealership site readiness.

Trial Court’s Decision

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed respondents' case, indicating that they could not claim ignorance of the lease contract's termination. It ruled that Gonzales did not warrant the continuation of the lease and owed no such obligation beyond his stated intention to assist in negotiating a new lease. The trial court also granted Gonzales’s counterclaim for the payment of the P500,000 balance for the shares sold.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the respondents' complaint but modified the ruling by deleting the order for the payment of P500,000. The CA held that the condition requiring Gonzales to procure a formal communication from Tanglaw confirming the lease’s continuation had not been fulfilled, thus freeing the respondents from the final payment obligation.

Argumentation on Condition

The core legal issue revolved around whether Gonzales was still entitled to the payment despite not acquiring the required official communication regarding the lease's status. The Supreme Court analyzed the nature of the obligation set forth in the "Agreement," determining it to be a condition subsequent to the contract's consummation rather than a condition precedent to the contract's existence.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The Court ruled that the respondents effectively waived the condition requiring Gonzales to obtain the official co

...continue reading

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