G.R. No. L-8024 November 29, 1955
EUSEBIO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. APOLONIO LEGASPI and CONCORDIA SAMPEROY, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

In November 1950, Eusebio de la Cruz filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Antique against Apolonio Legaspi and his wife, Concordia Samperoy, to compel the delivery of a parcel of land the defendants had sold to him in December 1949 for P450. The complaint alleged the execution of the contract, the terms thereof, the plaintiff’s tender of payment which the defendants refused to accept, and the defendants’ undue retention of the property. In their answer, the defendants admitted the sale and the price but alleged that before the document was executed, the plaintiff agreed to pay the P450 right after the document was signed and ratified on December 5, 1949. They claimed that after the document was notarized and the plaintiff took the original, he refused to pay. The defendants asserted that for lack of consideration and due to deceit, the document of sale should be annulled. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending the answer provided no excuse to retain the property. The defendants joined the motion, maintaining the sale should be annulled. The trial judge, Hon. F. Imperial Reyes, rendered judgment ordering the plaintiff to pay the P450 to the defendants and ordering the defendants to receive the payment and immediately deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff. The defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting their appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the defendants’ allegations of the plaintiff’s failure to pay the purchase price immediately after the execution of the deed of sale, as previously agreed, constitute a valid defense to annul the contract for lack of consideration or to resolve it automatically.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the subsequent non-payment of the price at the agreed time did not convert the contract into one without cause or consideration (a nudum pactum), as the cause (P450) existed at the time of signing. The plaintiff’s failure to pay constituted, at most, a default. The defendants’ remedies were to demand legal interest for the delay pursuant to Article 1501(3) of the Civil Code or to demand rescission in court. Such failure did not ipso facto resolve the contract, as no stipulation to that effect was alleged, nor was it alleged that payment on time was essential. Furthermore, even if the contract had provided for automatic rescission upon failure to pay, the trial judge could allow the plaintiff to enforce the contract because the defendants had not made a previous demand for rescission upon the plaintiff by suit or notarial act, as required by Article 1504 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the appealed judgment was affirmed, with costs against the appellants.