Florenzo vs Foz

Facts:
Eustaquio Foz executed in Manila a contract, ratified before a notary, obligating himself
to deliver his house and lot for a consideration of P6,000.00 to Jose Florendo. The latter
already paid P2,000.00 of the purchase price in the contract, plaintiff fixed the period of
the payment of the price wherein plaintiff has to pay the remainder when he goes to
Vigan or if not to pay to the church wherein he has a debt and to obtain the title of the
subject matter of the sale. Defendant went to Vigan, plaintiff tendered payment of the
remainder of the price however, the former refused to accept saying that the true price
of the sale recorded in the instrument was P10,000.00. As defendant refused payment,
plaintiff filed a suit to comply with the contract of absolute purchase and sale, by
delivering to the plaintiff the property sold.

Issue:
Whether or not the plaintiff can compel the defendant to deliver his property pursuant to
the notarized contract.

Held:
Yes. The contract is valid and effective. From the validity and force of the contract is
derived the obligation on the part of the vendor to deliver the thing sold. Pursuant to the
contract, it can’t be found that the payment of the price is a precondition for the delivery
of the thing. There was no need, therefore of assent on the part of the plaintiff to pay the
P4,000.00, the remainder of the price, in order to oblige the defendant unconditionally to
deliver the property sold. With still more reason should the defendant be compelled to
effect the material delivery of the property, since after the lapse of the period for the
delivery of the price, the plaintiff hastened to pay it and on account of the defendant’s
refusal to receive it, duly deposited it, in order to avoid the consequences that might
issue from delinquency in the payment of a sum entr