Scribd
Upload
47 views2 pages

University of The Philippines College of Law: Block F2021

1) Petitioner Virgilio R. Romero agreed to purchase land from private respondent for P800 per square meter on the condition that private respondent evict squatters on the property. 2) Private respondent failed to evict the squatters and sought to rescind the contract. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that private respondent could not rescind the contract due to her own failure, as the eviction of squatters was a mixed condition dependent on both private respondent and third parties like the squatters. The option to rescind or waive the condition belonged to petitioner, not private respondent.

Uploaded by

Darrell Magsambol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
47 views2 pages

University of The Philippines College of Law: Block F2021

1) Petitioner Virgilio R. Romero agreed to purchase land from private respondent for P800 per square meter on the condition that private respondent evict squatters on the property. 2) Private respondent failed to evict the squatters and sought to rescind the contract. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that private respondent could not rescind the contract due to her own failure, as the eviction of squatters was a mixed condition dependent on both private respondent and third parties like the squatters. The option to rescind or waive the condition belonged to petitioner, not private respondent.

Uploaded by

Darrell Magsambol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

University of the Philippines College of Law

Block F2021
Topic
Case No.
Case Name
Ponente
Case
assigned to:

Kinds of Conditions Mixed


G.R. No. 107207, November 23, 1995
ROMERO v CA
VITUG, J.
Darrell and Migrey
RELEVANT FACTS

Petitioner Virgilio R. Romero, a civil engineer, and his foreign partners decided to put
up a central warehouse in Metro Manila on a land area of approximately 2,000
square meters.
Private respondent called on petitioner with a proposal that should he advance the
amount of P50,000.00 which could be used in taking up an ejectment case against
the squatters, private respondent would agree to sell the property for only P800.00
per square meter.
Petitioner agreed. A "Deed of Conditional Sale," was executed between petitioner
and private respondent.
An ejectment suit was then filed by the private respondent against the squatters.
Although successful, private respondent sought the return of the down payment she
received because she could not get rid of the squatters.
ISSUE

W/N May the vendor demand the rescission of a contract for the sale of a parcel of land for
a cause traceable to his own failure
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue
W/N May the
vendor
demand the
rescission of
a contract
for the sale
of a parcel of
land for a
cause
traceable to
his own
failure

Ratio
NO.
From the moment the contract is perfected, the parties are
bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly
stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to
their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.
Under the agreement, private respondent is obligated to evict the
squatters on the property. The ejectment of the squatters is a condition
the operative act of which sets into motion the period of compliance by
petitioner of his own obligation, i.e., to pay the balance of the purchase
price.
Private respondent's failure "to remove the squatters from the property"
within the stipulated period gives petitioner the right to either refuse to
proceed with the agreement or waive that condition in consonance with
Article 1545 of the Civil Code.
This option clearly belongs to petitioner and not to private
respondent.

University of the Philippines College of Law


Block F2021
The undertaking required of private respondent does not constitute a
"potestative condition dependent solely on his will" that might,
otherwise, be void in accordance with Article 1182 of the Civil Code 17
but a "mixed" condition "dependent not on the will of the vendor alone
but also of third persons like the squatters and government agencies and
personnel concerned."
RULING
WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED AND
SET ASIDE, and another is entered ordering petitioner to pay private respondent the
balance of the purchase price and the latter to execute the deed of absolute sale in favor
of petitioner. No costs.
NO SEPARATE OPINION

You might also like