ROMULO CORONEL V. CA




FACTS:
                Petitioners sold a parcel of land, which they inherited through succession by the death of their father, to the private respondent.  The “Receipt of Downpayment” was then executed by the petitioners in favor of private respondent. Part of the said receipt is the statement that they bind themselves to effect the transfer in their names from their deceased father the transfer certificate of title immediately upon receipt of the downpayment abovestated. A month thereafter the transaction, the title of the property was transferred under their name. Instead of delivering the title to private respondent to consummate their transaction, the petitioners sold the property to a third party. With this, petitioners unilaterally cancelled and rescinded the contract between them and the private respondents on the ground of physical absence of the private respondent since she was abroad.

ISSUE:
                Whether or not the physical absence of the private respondent rendered her in default insofar as her obligation to pay the full purchase price is concerned.

HELD:
                NO.
                Article 1169 provides that in reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfill his obligation, delay by the other begins.
                In the case at bar, the obligation of the private respondent to pay the full amount depends on the obligation of the petitioners to present the new transfer certificate of title and execute the deed of absolute sale. The petitioners, however, failed to comply with their agreement. Hence, private respondent’s obligation never became due and demandable and therefore she cannot be deemed to have been in default.

Comments