Abella v. Francisco

Abella v. Francisco (Julio C. Abella, plaintiff and appellant vs. Guillermo B. Franciso, defendant and appelle) G.R. No. 32336 / 20 December 1930 Avancena, J. / mvp SUBJECT MATTER: Breach of Obligation > Modes of Breach > Delay (Mora) > Kinds > Mora Solvendi (Exceptions) CASE SUMMARY: In this case, Francisco bought 9 lots from the Government but was behind on his payments. He then signed a document stating that he received P500 from Abella and that Abella will pay for the lots (at P100/hectare) on or before December 15, extendible 15days thereafter. Abella was not able to pay within the specified time and instead paid the balance on January 9. Francisco rescinded the contract through his attorney-in-fact Mabanta. Abella filed an action before the CFI to compel Francisco to accept his payment and deliver the lots to him. CFI absolved Francisco so Abella appealed to the SC. The SC affirmed the decision of the CFI, stating that time is an essential element of the transaction and thus, in accordance with Art. 1124, Francisco is entitled to rescind the contract. DOCTRINE: Since the contract between the defendant and plaintiff specified a certain date within which the payment should be made, and since such payments from the plaintiff are to be used by the defendant to pay off certain obligations, time, in this case, is therefore essential element. In accordance with Art. 1124, the defendant is entitled to rescind the contract for failure to pay within the specified time. FACTS:  This is an appeal from the judgment of CFI Rizal  Guillermo Francisco bought lots 937 to 945 in Tala Estate, Novaliches, Caloocan, Rizal from the Government in installments. He was behind in his payments and thus, in order to pay off certain obligations, Francisco sold the said lots to Julio C. Abella. On 31 October 1928, he signed a document in which it was shown that he received P500 on that date from Abella as payment for the lots and that the balance was due on or before the 15th day of December, 1928, extendible 15 days thereafter.  Abella paid another P415.31 on 13 November 1928 upon demand made by Francisco.  On 27 December 1928, when Francisco was in Cebu, he authorized Roman Mabanta to sign the deed of conveyance of the lots to Abella. He also instructed him that if Abella fails to pay the remainder of the selling price, the sale/option to purchase would be considered cancelled and the paid amount of P915.31 should be returned to Abella.  On 3 January 1929, Mabanta informed Abella about Francisco’s instructions and he gave Abella until the 5th of January to pay off the balance of the selling price.  Abella was only able to pay on 9 January but the payment was rejected by Mabanta as he considered the sale rescinded already. He likewise returned the P915.31 to Abella.  Abella brought an action to compel Francisco to execute the deed of sale upon receipt of the balance and to declare him the owner of the said lots.  The CFI absolved Francisco, hence this appeal. ISSUE: WON Francisco can rescind the contract given the delay in the payment of the within the specified time. (YES) HOLDING: YES  The plaintiff failed to pay the price of the lots within the stipulated time and since the contract between plaintiff and defendant was an option for the purchase of the lots, time was an essential element in it.  Abella’s claim the Mabanta extended the deadline for the payment to Jan. 9, but Mabanta stated that he only extended the deadline until Jan. 5 which was corroborated by Paz Vicente. Abella also admitted this when he told Narciso Javier that his option to purchase the lots expired on Jan. 5.  Under Art. 1124 of the Civil Code, the defendant is entitled to resolve the contract for failure to pay the price within the time specified. Petition DENIED. CFI decision AFFIRMED