110.

Smith Bell v. Sotelo Matti,

44 Phil 874
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
DOCTRINE OF LAW: If the uncertainty should consist in the arrival or non-arrival of the
day, the obligation is conditional.

FACTS: In August, 1918, during the first World War, plaintiff and defendant entered into
several contracts whereby the former agreed to sell, and the latter to purchase, two
steel tanks for P21,000, the same to be shipped from New York and delivered in Manila
“within three or four months,” two expellers at P25,000 each, which were to be shipped
from San Francisco in “September, 1918, or as soon as possible,” and two electric
motors, approximate delivery of which was to be made “within ninety days, although not
guaranteed.” Because of the war that was going on, there was a stipulation in all of the
contracts that delivery of the machineries shall be subject to government regulations,
embargoes and other requirements. Upon their arrival in Manila, defendant refused to
accept the machineries on the ground that plaintiff had incurred in delay. As a result, the
latter brought this action against the former for specific performance.

ISSUE: Whether the obligation is conditional hence the defendant can still be compelled
to comply with the obligation

RULING: Yes, “Considering these contracts in the light of the civil law, we cannot but
conclude that the term which the parties attempted to fix is so uncertain that one cannot
tell just whether, as a matter of fact, these articles could be brought to Manila or not. If
that is the case, as we think it is, the obligation must be regarded as conditional.