HERMOSA v. LONGARA (October 27, 1953) G.R. No. L-5267 No. L-5267 Ponente: Labrador, Ponente: Labrador, J. Action: appeal Action: appeal by way of certiorari against a CA decision Keywords (Topic): conditional (Topic): conditional obligations, mixed conditions
SHORT STORY: Longara is a creditor of the late Fernando Hermosa, Sr. and is trying to enforce his claims against the estate of the latter. CA approved his claims. The heirs of FHS are arguing that the claims were based on an obligation subect to a potestative condition, therefore the obligation is void. Court held that the condition is not a potestative one, but a mi!ed one, and therefore the obligation was still valid, i.e., Longara"s claims are still enforceable. A!TS: •
•
•
This is an appeal by way of certiorari against a CA decision decision approving certain claims presented by #pifanio Longara against the intestate estate of Fernando Hermosa, Sr. o $hp %&'(.'( ) credit advances to intestate *(+&%''$hp (%,+%'.(% ) credit advances to his son Francisco Hermosa o o $hp &% ) credit advances to grandson Fernando Hermosa, /r. *(+'0', after death of intestate on 1ecember,(+''Claimant presented evidence that the intestate had as2ed for the advances for himself and for his family o" co"#$t$o" t%&t '&e"t *%o+# be e b er"&"#o Hero*&, Sr. &* *oo" &* %e rece$ve -+"#* #er$ve# -ro t%e *&e o- %$* 'ro'ert $" S'&$" *in other words, payable as soon as FHS"s property in Spain was sold and he received money from the sale-. Appellant contended that the obligation obligation contracted by intestate intestate was subect to a potestative potestative condition *solely dependent upon the will of the debtor- and therefore null and void , per Art.(((0 of the old CC.
SS/ES: 1.) 0ON t%e co"#$t$o" $" +e*t$o" $* & 'ote*t&t$ve co"#$t$o". %.- 345 the & rd group of claims *credits furnished to intestate"s grandson, ATER death ATER death of intestate should be allowed.
R/LES: Art. 112 *formerly 112 *formerly Art. (((0-. 3hen the fulfillment of the condition depends upon the sole will of the debtor, the co"#$t$o"& ob$&t$o" *%& be vo$# . 6f it depends upon chance or upon the will of a third person, the obligation shall ta2e effect in conformity with the provisions of this Code. " re&t$o" to t%e #$**e"t: 6f the obligation is a pree!isting one and therefore does not depend for its e4$*te"ce upon the fulfillment of the debtor of the potestative condition, o" t%e co"#$t$o" $* vo$# leaving unaffected the obligation itself. Hence, the condition is imposed not on the birth of the o bligation but on its fulfillment. !e Leon"
ANALYSS:
•
(.- NO. t $* & $4e# co"#$t$o". Condition does not depend e!clusively upon will of the debtor, but also upon other circumstances beyond his power or control. 6t implies that the intestate had already decided to sell his house, or at least that he made his creditors believe that he had done so, and that all that was left to ma2e his obligation *to pay debt- demandable is the consummation of the sale and the remittance of the price. The will will to sell on the debtor"s part was therefore either present in fact, or legally presumed to e!ist, although the price and other conditions thereof were still within his discretion. Therefore, the obligation is not purely a potestative one, but a $4e# one, depending partly upon the will of the debtor *i.e., the intestate-, and partly upon chance, i.e., the presence of the buyer of the property. %.- NO. The obligation to furnish support is a personal one and is e!tinguished upon the death of the principal. Therefore the decision approving the third set of claims should be reversed.
!ON!L/SON6SOST8E:
1ecision ARME6 N ART and RE8ERSE6 N ART. Claims of $%&'( and $(%.+7 approved, claim of $&.7 reversed. ARAS, !.., !ON!/RRNG &"# 6SSENTNG: • • •
•
•
Concur insofar as to the reversal of the third set of claims *$&.71issent insofar as the approval of the other claims The condition 8payable as soon as Fernando Hermosa, Sr."s property in Spain is sold and he receives money derived from the sale9 is a 'ote*t&t$ve co"#$t$o" and is therefore null and void in accordance with Art. (((0 of the old CC. The matter of the sale of the house rested upon the sole will of the debtor. The maority even admits that if the condition were 8if he decides to sell his house9 or 8if he li2es to pay the sums advanced9, it would be potestative. There is only a mere play of words here. 6n said condition, it is immaterial 345 he had already decided to sell his house, since there is no indication in the agreement that if the conditions happened, he would be bound to proceed with the sale. The terms of the sale are still subect to the sole udgment ) if not whims and caprice ) of FHS. *6n the absence of any contract setting the terms which would be acceptable to the debtor, nobody could legally compel him to ma2e any sale-. :4nly the; condition is "+ &"# vo$# *see
>#16AT#L? 1#>A51A@L# or *%- payable within a term to be fi!ed by the court. HO0E8ER, in both cases the action to as2 the court to fi! the period has already prescribed after the lapse of ten years :from the date of the agreement itself;. So only option ( is available.