Labayen v.

Talisay
G.R. No. 29298. December 16, 1928
FACTS:
The undivided owners of the hacienda known as Dos Hermanos, situated in the municipality of
Talisay, Occidental Negros and the defendant Talisay Silay Milling Co. entered into a milling
contract until the year 1928 provided for the construction of a railroad. For this purpose, the
plaintiff supposed to allow the construction of the railroad in the Hacienda but the plaintiff didn’t
give permission to do so. The plaintiffs sued the defendant in violation of the milling contract,
that they did not construct the railroad and as a result of which the sugar cane produced during
the agricultural years were not brought to and milled by the defendant's central; that for this
reason the plaintiffs suffered a loss amounting to P28,620 for the recovery of which they brought
civil case No. 3789 of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros
ISSUE:
Should the plaintiff’s action prosper?
HELD:
No, the contract clearly stipulated "whenever the contour of the land, the curves, and elevations
permit the same." It was shown that such construction was possible but very dangerous. The
contract further provided that "In case of inability to secure, under reasonable conditions such
rights-of-way as ’La Central’ may require, . . . its effects shall be suspended in part or in whole
during such period of incapacity." As it was shown that the owner of the haciendas through
which the railroad would have to pass would not grant permission to use his land for this
purpose. Art. 1186 of the civil code states that the condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the
obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment. On these facts, it is held that the action for damages
for the alleged breach of contract to grind sugar cane cannot prosper.

Valencia v. RFC
G.R. No. L-10749 April 25, 1958
FACTS:

SHYRA MAE R. ECO

JD - 1
The respondent Rehabilitation Finance Corporation issued and advertised to the general public
an "invitation to bid" for the construction of a reinforced concrete building at Claveria Street,
City of Davao. In response to the invitation, petitioner Brigido R. Valencia submitted a bid and
was advised that the contract for plumbing installations was awarded to him for P12,800 "with
performance bond of 20% thereof." The letter of respondent's manager in Davao, in-formed
petitioner and asked him to call at the writer's office for the purpose of affixing his signature on
said contract, and requested him to post said performance bond. Valencia didn’t comply in
putting up a performance bond and did not perform the work. In view of petitioner's failure to
sign the contract for the plumbing installations, respondent awarded the same for P19,000 to the
contractor for the construction of the building. Thereafter, the respondent sued the petitioner to
recover the sum of P6,200 representing the difference between the amount of the contract
awarded to him and the price at which the plumbing installations were awarded to Sanchez and
Antigua Engineering Co. — plus P1,000, as attorney's fees, and the costs. In Valencia’s defense,
there was no contract since the condition of putting up the performance bond was not complied
with.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Valencia is liable?
HELD:
Yes, Valencia is liable. The petitioners failure to comply did not relive him from the obligation
arising from the acceptance of the offer. The existence of the contractual relation between the
parties did not depend upon the posting the performance bond. The performance bond was not a
condition before he could compel to make the installation, although of course it was a condition
before he could insist on working and getting paid. And assuming that the condition was indeed
conditional, it was he who voluntarily prevented its fulfillment.

SHYRA MAE R. ECO

JD - 1