The condition is potestative.

Lisa (debtor) promises to pay her debt to Jenny if she receives the
proceeds from the sale of her property. In a similar case, wherein the debtor promised to pay
upon the sale of the house in which she lived, the Supreme court ruled that “if that statement
found in her (referring to the debtor) acknowledgment of the indebtedness should be regarded as
a condition, it was a condition which depended upon her exclusive will, and is therefore, void.”
(Osmena vs. Rama, 14 Phil. 99.) Lisa’s promise to pay if her property is sold is, in essence, the
same as Rama’s (the debtor in the Supreme Court case) promise to pay if her house is sold. Since
the court ruled that the condition depended upon the debtor’s exclusive will, the same shall apply
to the condition in this obligation. Therefore, the condition is potestative and void.

Defense: In a mixed condition, there is typically a combination of factors, often involving the
will of a third person or an element of chance. However, in the case we're discussing, the
condition seems to primarily hinge on the debtor's will so much so that the fulfillment of other
conditions would be pointless if in the end Lisa would not sell her property. While there might be
an argument that the sale itself could involve external factors, the key determining decision—the
sale of the property—is ultimately within Lisa's control. Unlike in mixed conditions where a
third party's decision or an unpredictable event plays a substantial role, here the condition's
fulfillment is closely tied to Lisa's personal choice and actions. Classifying the condition as
mixed would give the false representation that the condition and the obligation are valid.