Almoceravs.Ong compl aintf orDamages agai nstAndre T.

Al mocer a and
546SCRA164 FBMC al l
eging t hat they wer e guilty of fraudul ent
G.R.No.170479 concealmentand br each ofcontractwhen t hey sol
dt o
Februar
y18,2008 him at ownhouseuni twi thoutdivul
gingt hatt hesame,
at the t ime of the per fecti
on of their contract, was
FACTS: alreadymor tgagedwi t
ht heLandBankoft hePhi li
ppines
JohnnyOngt riedtoacquirefrom Andr eT.Almoceraand (LBP),wi t
ht he latt
er causi ng t
he foreclosure oft he
First Builder Mul t
i-Purpose Cooper at
ive (FBMC) a mor tgageandt heevent ualsaleofthet ownhouseuni tt o
"t
ownhome"i n Cebu City
.Asr eflect
ed in a Cont
ractto at hirdper son.
Sell,the sell
ing pri
ce oft he uni t was P3,400,
000.00
pesos. Int hei
r Answer
,Almocer a and FBMC deni ed l
iabil
it
y
clai
ming thatthe f
orecl
osure ofthe mor t
gage on the
Out of t
he purchase pr
ice, he was abl
eto pay t
he townhouseunitwascausedbyt hefail
ureofJohnnyOng
amountofP1,060,000.
00. topaythebalanceofthepriceofsai
dt ownhouseuni t
.

Pr i
ortot hef ullpaymentoft hisamount ,Ongcl aimst hat ISSUES:
defendant s Andr e Al mocer a and Fi rst Bui l
der s 1. WON itwasacont racttosel loracont
ractofsal
e.
fraudul entl
y conceal ed the factthatbef ore and att he 2. WON ther espondent’
sr ef
usalt opaythebalanceof
ti
me oft he per fect
ion oft he afor
esaid contractt o sell
, thepurchasepriceisjusti
fied.-YES
thepr oper tywasal readymor t
gaged toand encumber ed
wi t
ht heLandBankoft hePhi l
ippines(LBP).Inaddi tion, HELD:
theconst r
uct i
onoft hehousehasl ongbeendel ayedand 1. Itcannotbedisput
ed t
hatt hecontractenter
ed into
remai ns unfini shed. On Mar ch 13, 1999, Lot 4- a
bythepar t
ieswasacont ractto sell
.In acontract
covering the uni twas adver ti
sed in alocalt abloidf or
tosell
,ownershi
pisret
ainedbyt hesellerandisnot
publ i
c auct ion f or for
eclosure of mor t
gage. Iti st he
topasstothebuyerunti
lfullpaymentoft hepri
ce.
assertion of Ong t hat had i t not for the fraudul ent
conceal ment of t he mor t
gage and encumbr ance by
The cont ract was denomi nat
ed as such and i t
defendant s,hewoul dhavenotent eredintothecont ract
contained t he provision t hat the unit shal l be
tosell.
conveyed by way of an Absol ute Deed of Sal e,
togetherwiththeat tendantdocument sofOwner ship
On t heot herhand,def endant sasser tt
hatonMar ch 20,
–t he TransferCertificate ofTi
t l
e and Cert
ificat
e of
1995,Fi rstBui ldersMul t
i-purposeCoop.I nc.
,bor rowed
Occupancy – and t hatt he balance ofthe contract
moneyi nt heamountofP500, 000.00 f
rom TommyOng,
priceshallbepai dupont hecompl et
ionanddel i
ver y
plai
nt iff’
sbr other .Thisamountwasused t ofinancet he
oft he unit,as wellas t he acceptance t
her eofby
document ation requirement soft heLBP f orthef undi ng
respondent.Allthesecl earl
yindicatethatowner ship
oftheAt ri
um Town Homes.Thi sloan willbeappl i
ed in
ofthet ownhousehasnotpassedt orespondent .
paymentofone( 1)town houseuni twhich TommyOng
may event uall
y pur chase f rom t he proj
ect.When t he
Theunitshallbecompl eted and conveyed bywayof
project was under way , Tommy Ong want ed to buy
anAbsoluteDeedofSal etogetherwi ththeat tendant
anot hert ownhousef orhi sbr other,JohnnyOng,pl aintiff
documentsofOwner shi pi nthenameoft heBUYER
herein,whi ch then,t he amount ofP150, 000.00 was
–the Transf
erCertificate ofTitl
e and Cer ti
ficate of
gi
venasaddi ti
onalpar t
ialpayment .
Occupancy wit
hin a per i
od ofsi x( 6)mont hs from
thesi
gningofContractt oSel l
.
However ,t hepar t
icularuni twasnotye tident ified.Itwas
only on Januar y 10,1997 t hatTommy Ong i dentified
2. The r
espondentisjust
ified inr
efusi
ng t
o pay t
he
Uni tNo.4 pl ai
nt i
ff’
s chosen uni tand agai nt ender ed
bal
anceofthecont
ractpr ice.
P350, 000. 00 as hi st hird par ti
alpayment .When t he
cont r
actt osellforUni t4wasbei ngdr aft
ed,TommyOng
Fr om t he ter
ms oft he contract,i ti s clear that
request edt hatanot hercont ractt osellcover i
ngUni t5be
pe ti
ti
onerand FBMC had t heobl igation tocompl ete
madesoast ogiveJohnnyOnganot heropt iont ochoose
the t ownhouse uni t withi
n six mont hs from t he
whi chever uni t he mi ght deci de to have. When t he
signingoft hecont r
act .Upon compl iancet her ewit
h,
const r
uct i
on wasal r
eady i nf ullblast,def endant swer e
the obl i
gati
on ofrespondentt o pay t he bal ance of
informedbyTommyOngt hatt heirfinalchoi cewasUni t
P2, 400,000.00 ari
ses.Upon payment t her eof,the
5.I twasonl yupon knowi ngt hatt hedef endant swi llbe
townhouse shal l be del i
vered and conveyed t o
selli
ngUni t4 t o someot herper sonsf orP4mi ll
ion that
respondentupont heexecut ion oftheAbsol ut eDeed
plaintiff changedhi schoicef rom Uni t5t oUni t4.
ofSal eandot herrelevantdocument s.

In tr
ying t
or ecover t
he amount he paid as down
The evi
dence adduced shows that pet
iti
oner and
paymentfor t
he townhouse uni
t,Johnny Ong fil
ed a
FBMC fail
ed t
of ul
fil
lthei
robl
igati
on --to complet
e
and deliver the townhouse wi thint he six-mont h
period.Wi t
h pe t
iti
onerand FBMC’ s non-fulfil
lment
oft hei
r obligat
ion,r espondentr ef
used to pay t he
balanceoft hecont ractpr i
ce.Respondentdoesnot
ask thatowner ship ofthet ownhousebet ransf er
red
to him,butmer ely asks thatt he amountordown
paymenthehadmadeber et ur
nedt ohi m.

Thecont ractsubjectoft hi
scasecont ainsrecipr
ocal
obli
gati
onswhi ch weretobef ulfil
led bythepar ties,
i.
e.,tocompl et
eanddel ivert hetownhousewi thinsi x
mont hsfrom theexecuti on ofthecont r
acttosel lon
the partofpe ti
ti
oner and FBMC,and t o pay the
balance ofthe contractpr i
ce upon compl etion and
deli
very of t he townhouse on t he part of t he
respondent.

Int he case atbar ,the obli

gation ofpe titionerand
FBMC whi ch is to compl ete and del iver t he
townhouse uni t wit
hin t he pr escribed per iod, is
determi nat
ive ofthe respondent ’s obligation t o pay
thebal anceoft hecont r
actpr i
ce.Wi tht heirf ail
ure
tofulfil
ltheirobli
gati
onasst i
pulat edint hecont ract
,
theyi ncurreddelayandar eliablef ordamages.They
cannot i nsist that respondent compl y wi th hi s
obligati
on.Wher eoneoft hepar tiestoacont r
actdi d
notper formt heunder takingtowhi chhewasbound
byt het ermsoft heagr eementt oper form,hei snot
entitl
ed toinsistupon t heper f
or manceoft heot her
part y
.

Petit
ioner insistst here was no del ay when t he
townhouse uni t was not compl e
ted wi t
hin si x
mont hs fr
om t he si gning ofthe cont r
acti nasmuch
as the mer el apse oft he st
ipul ated six( 6)mont h
period i
snotbyi tselfenough t oconst itut edel ayon
his partand t hatofFBMC,si nce t he law r equires
thatt here mustei ther be judi cialor ext rajudicial
demand t of ulfil
lan obl i
gati
on so t hatt he obligor
maybedecl ared in def ault
.Hear guest her ewasno
evidence intr
oduced showi ng thata pr ior demand
was made by r espondentbef oret he or i
gi nalact ion
wasi nsti
tutedi nthet r
ialcour t
.

Wedonotagr
ee.

Demand i s not necessary in the i nst

ant case.
Demand by t he respondent woul d be usel ess
because the i
mpossibi
li
ty ofcompl ying withtheir
(
pe t
iti
oner and FBMC)obl i
gation was due totheir
f
ault.Ifonlytheypai
dt heirloanswi t
ht heLBP,t he
mor t
gageon thesubjecttownhousewoul d nothave
beenforecl
osedandthereaft
ersoldt oat hi
rdperson.
Gaitevs.Fonaci
er Fonaciert
opayGait
ethebalanceofP65,000 becausei
t
2SCRA831 doesnotseem t
o bethei
ntenti
on ofthepartiestothe
G.R.No.L-11827 contr
act.
July31,1961
TheCour tl
ooked i
nt osever
alcir
cumst anceswhich l
ead
FACTS: them toconcludet hatt hesal
eoft hei r
on oreisbuta
Isabel
oFonaci erexecuteda‘DeedofAssi gnment ’infavor suspensiveter
m.Fi rst,t
hewordsoft hecontractexpr
ess
ofFernandoGai t
eashi strueandl awfulat t
orney-in-f
act nocontingencyinthebuyer '
sobligat
iontopay.
so that t he latt
er may enter into a contract for the
explorati
onanddevel opmentoft heminingcl aimsowned Second,i
nthe usualcourse ofbusi
ness,an oner
ous
by Fonaci er
. Gai t
e executed a gener al assignment contr
acti
smostl
ikel
ypref
erredbytheparti
esi
nasal e.
conveying t he development and expl oitati
on of sai d
mi ni
ngcl aimst oLarapI r
onMi nesownedbyhi m. Not hing isfound i nt he r ecordt o evi
dence thatGai t
e
desi r
ed orassumed t or un t he ri
sk ofl osi
ng hisr i
ght
Fonaci erdeci ded tor evoket he ‘Deed ofAssi gnment ’to overt heor ewi thoutge tti
ngpai dforit,ort hatFonacier
whi chGai t
eassent edont hecondi ti
ont hatFonaci eristo under stood thatGai te assumed any such r i
sk.Thi sis
payhi m P75, 000fort he24, 000me tri
ct onsofi ronlodes proved by the f actt hatGai teinsist
ed on a bond a t o
alreadyext ractedandt or et
aint hecompanynameLar ap guar anteepaymentoft heP65, 000.00,an notonl yupon
Iron MI nes.Fonaci er already pai d P10, 000 leaving a a bond by Fonaci er
,t he Lar ap Mines & Smel ting Co.,
bal anceofP65, 000 whi ch,asagr eed by t hem,i sto be and t he company' s stockhol ders,butal so on one by a
der ived f r
om t he localsal e ofIron ore made by Lar ap sur etycompany;andt hef actt hatappellantsdidputup
Iron Mi nes.On December 8,1954,Fonaci er issued a such bonds i ndicat
es t hat t hey admi t
ted the definit
e
secur i
ty bond t o secur e paymentofbal ance wi th Far existence of t heir obligation t o pay t he balance of
East er
n Sur et
y and I nsur ance Co. but t he sur et
y P65, 000.00.
pr ovided t hatl i
abili
tyt ot he company wi l
lonl y at
tach
when t here had been act ualsal e ofir on ore by Larap Assumi ng t hat there coul d be doubt whe ther by t he
Iron Mi nesf oran amountofnotl esst han P65, 000 and wor ding of t he cont ract t he par ti
es i ndented a
thatt hebond wi llaut omat i
call
yexpi reon December8, suspensi ve condition or a suspensi ve period (dies ad
1955. quem)f ort he paymentoft he P65, 000.00,t he rules of
interpretation woul di ncl i
ne the scal es i
nf avorof" the
Nosaleoft hei r
on or
ewasmadet hereaf
ter
.Gai t
efai
led greaterr eciprocityofint erest
s",si ncesal eisessent i
ally
to pay Fonacier t
he balance and t
he surety company oner ous.TheCi vilCodeoft hePhi l
ippines,Ar t
icle1378,
ref
used t o pay cont ending that the bond expired par agraph1,i nfine,pr ovides:
automatical
ly. “Ifthe cont r
acti s oner ous,t he doubtshal lbe
sett
led inf avor of t he gr eatest r
ec i
procit
y of
Gaiteinst
itut
ed t
hepr esentcase.Fonaci
erargued that int
erests.
”
thepaymentoft heP65, 000 bal
ancewassubj ectt
ot he
condit
ionthatitwoul
dbepai doutofthefir
stsaleofthe Therecanbenoquest ionthatgreat
erreci
proci
tyobtains
ironorebyLarapMineswhi chdidnothappen. i
ft hebuyer'obli
gati
on isdeemedt obeactuall
yexist
ing,
with onl
yitsmat urit
y( duedate)post
poned ordef
erred,
ISSUE: thatifsuch obli
gat
ion werevi
ewedasnonexi st
entornot
WON theobligat
ion ofFonaciertopayGait
et hebalance bindi
ngunt iltheorewassold.
ofP65,000 was ext
inguished becauset
he i
ron or
e was
notsol
dwi t
hinayear . Theonl yr at
ionalview thatcan betaken ist hatthesal e
oft heoret oFonaci erwasa sal eon credit,and notan
HELD: aleatory contract wheret he transfer
or, Gai t
e, would
The shi pment or l
ocalsale oft he ir
on orei s not a assume t he ri
sk ofnotbei ng paid atall;and t hatthe
conditi
on precedent(orsuspensi ve)tothe paymentof previous sale or shi pment of t he or e was not a
the balance ofP65,000.00,butwas onl y a suspensive suspensivecondi ti
on forthepaymentoft hebal anceof
peri
od or term.Thatt he sal
e did notoccur wi thina the agreed price,butwas i nt
ended mer elyt o fix t
he
peri
od ofone yeardi d notextinguish t
he obligat
ion of futuredateoft hepayment .