Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18327)
Terms of the Promissory Note
The note acknowledged an indebtedness of ₱1,600 “to be paid as soon as possible or as soon as I have money.”
No fixed maturity date was specified, and no security was provided, reflecting the parties’ close relationship.
Payment was also tied to Omega’s purported right of repurchase of an agricultural parcel sold under a pacto de retro.
Legal Issue: Condition at Debtor’s Discretion
Article 1115, Civil Code (1930), renders void any condition dependent solely on the debtor’s will.
By leaving the payment term to Omega’s discretion (“as soon as I have money”), the note incorporated a null condition.
The primary question: Does nullifying that condition render the obligation immediately due and payable, or must a definite term be judicially fixed?
Civil Code Provisions and Their Interaction
Article 1128, Civil Code, empowers courts to fix a payment term when none is set or when the term rests with the debtor’s discretion.
Where parties inadvertently agree to an unlawful condition under Art. 1115, Art. 1128 “supplies” the contractual deficiency by entrusting the court with setting a reasonable deadline.
Treatises note that unlike a pure obligation (immediately exigible), an obligation originally intended to grant a term must be honored as such.
Jurisdictional Considerations
The amount in controversy (₱1,600) fell within the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace in Villaba, Leyte.
The Court of First Instance of Leyte possessed proper appellate jurisdiction over the Justice of the Peace’s judgment.
Precedents on Judicial Fixing of Term
Osmeña v. Rama (1909): holding a void condition yields an absolute obligation (later distinguished).
Eleizegui v. Manila Lawn Tennis Club; Levy Hermanos v. Paterno; Seoane v. Franco; Yu Chin Piao v. Lim Tuaco; Gonzales v. De Jose: each applied Art. 1128 to fix judicially the term where the debtor’s discretion governed payment.
These decisions establish that a plaintiff must first secure a court-fixed date before suing for payment.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Court, through Justice Pablo, held that:
- The conditional term was void under Art. 1115.
- The voiding of the condition did not convert the obligation into an immediately demandable debt
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-18327)
Facts of the Case
- On August 24, 1949, Roman Omega executed a promissory note in Villaba, Leyte, acknowledging receipt of One Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (₱1,600) from Salud Patente.
- The note recited an intention to pay “as soon as possible or as soon as I have money,” without any security, owing to intimate family relations.
- It covered prior indebtedness dating from May 4, 1947 and earlier.
- The debtor certified that full payment must precede his exercise of the right of repurchase (pacto de retro) over an agricultural land in Tag-alang, Villaba, Leyte (Tax No. 2662), previously sold to the creditor.
Procedural History
- The Justice of the Peace of Villaba, Leyte, rendered judgment ordering payment of ₱1,600 within four months from promulgation, with costs.
- On appeal to the Court of First Instance of Leyte, both parties submitted a written stipulation of facts and framed purely legal questions:
• The jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace to fix a definite term under Civil Code Article 1128.
• The appellate jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. - The trial court declared the obligation pure and unconditional, ordered payment with interest and costs, and upheld the four-month deadline.
- Roman Omega appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Justice of the Peace had jurisdiction to apply Article 1128 of the Civil Code and fix a definite term for payment.
- Whether the Court of First Instance possessed appellate jurisdiction.
- Whether the condition “as soon as possible or as soon as I have money,” being at the debtor’s exclusive will, is void under Civil Code Article 1115.
- Upon nullific