Florendo v. Foz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Eustaquio P. Foz executed a contract on May 11, 1909, selling his house and camarin, including the lots, to Jose Florendo for P6,000. Foz acknowledged receiving P2,000 and stipulated that the remaining P4,000 would be paid by Florendo in Vigan when Foz arrived there, or if Foz could not go to Vigan, Florendo was authorized to pay Foz's debt to the church in Vigan and send any remainder to Foz in Manila. Foz also agreed that Florendo could collect rents from July 1, 1909, onwards. Subsequently, Foz refused to accept the P4,000 tendered by Florendo in Vigan, claiming the actual sale price was P10,000 as per a separate, unproduced instrument. 2. Procedural History: Florendo initiated a lawsuit seeking compliance with the sale contract, delivery of the property, payment of rents from July 1, 1909, and the proper application of the P4,000 deposit towards Foz's debts and the remainder to Foz. Foz, in his defense, alleged deceit in the execution of the P6,000 deed, claiming he believed the price was P10,000. The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur ruled in favor of Florendo, ordering compliance with the contract and dismissing Foz's counterclaim. Foz appealed this decision. 3. The Petition: The appellant, Foz, argued that the deed of sale was invalid due to deceit, asserting that he was misled into believing the price was P10,000. He contended that the deed should not prevail over his claims and that the deposit of the remaining P4,000 was not properly made. The Supreme Court, however, found no evidence of deceit or falsity in the P6,000 deed. It determined that the contract was valid and effective, and under Article 1466 of the Civil Code, the vendor is obliged to deliver the property if a period for payment is fixed, regardless of whether the price has been paid, especially since a period was indeed stipulated. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, deeming the execution of the public instrument as equivalent to formal delivery of the property.
Issue(s)
Whether the contract of sale executed by Foz in favor of Florendo for P6,000 is valid and binding. Whether the execution of the public instrument constitutes sufficient delivery of the property sold. Whether the vendor, Foz, is obligated to deliver the property sold despite the remaining balance of the purchase price not having been paid, given that a period for payment was stipulated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, upholding the validity and enforceability of the contract of sale. The Court ordered the defendant-appellant to comply with the contract by delivering the property sold. The appeal was dismissed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found the contract of sale to be valid and effective. The defendant's claim of deceit, alleging that he was made to believe the price was P10,000 when it was P6,000, was unsubstantiated. No evidence was presented to prove that the instrument was misread or that any deceit was employed by the plaintiff during the execution of the contract. Therefore, the contract, as written and ratified, was deemed binding. On Issue 2: The Court held that the execution of the public instrument served as a formal or symbolical delivery of the property sold, pursuant to Article 1462, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code. Since the contract did not stipulate otherwise, the execution of the deed of sale was equivalent to the delivery of the house and camarin, authorizing the plaintiff to use the title of ownership as proof of his ownership from that point forward. On Issue 3: The Court ruled that the vendor, Foz, was obligated to deliver the property sold, notwithstanding the unpaid balance of P4,000, because a period for payment was fixed in the contract. According to Article 1466 of the Civil Code, the vendor must deliver the thing sold if a period for payment has been fixed. The contract stipulated that the remaining P4,000 would be paid in Vigan when the vendor arrived there, or if he could not go, the vendee would send the remainder to Manila after paying the vendor's debt to the church. This established a period, making the vendor's obligation to deliver unconditional, even before the price was fully paid. The subsequent tender of payment and deposit of the P4,000 by the plaintiff, upon the defendant's refusal to accept it, further solidified the plaintiff's right to demand delivery.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the validity and enforceability of a contract of sale executed through a public instrument, emphasizing that such execution is equivalent to the delivery of the property sold unless the contrary is stipulated. The Court also reiterated that under Article 1466 of the Civil Code, a vendor is obligated to deliver the thing sold if a period for payment has been fixed in the contract, even if the full price has not yet been paid, and that the vendee's tender of payment and subsequent deposit upon the vendor's refusal fulfills the obligation to pay and compels delivery.