Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 265 views

    6 - Abella VS Francisco - Delay

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    The defendant purchased land from the government in installments and fell behind on payments. He signed a document acknowledging a partial payment of P500 with the balance due on or before December 15, 1928, extendable 15 days. On December 27, 1928, while in Cebu, he authorized his attorney Mabanta to handle the transfer of the land to the plaintiff. Mabanta extended the deadline to January 5, 1929 but refused payment on January 9, 1929, considering the contract rescinded. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that time was essential in the option contract and the plaintiff failed to pay by the specified deadline.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    6 - Abella VS Francisco - Delay

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    265 views1 page
    The defendant purchased land from the government in installments and fell behind on payments. He signed a document acknowledging a partial payment of P500 with the balance due on or before December 15, 1928, extendable 15 days. On December 27, 1928, while in Cebu, he authorized his attorney Mabanta to handle the transfer of the land to the plaintiff. Mabanta extended the deadline to January 5, 1929 but refused payment on January 9, 1929, considering the contract rescinded. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that time was essential in the option contract and the plaintiff failed to pay by the specified deadline.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    6_Abella VS Francisco_Delay

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant purchased land from the government in installments and fell behind on payments. He signed a document acknowledging a partial payment of P500 with the balance due on or before December 15, 1928, extendable 15 days. On December 27, 1928, while in Cebu, he authorized his attorney Mabanta to handle the transfer of the land to the plaintiff. Mabanta extended the deadline to January 5, 1929 but refused payment on January 9, 1929, considering the contract rescinded. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that time was essential in the option contract and the plaintiff failed to pay by the specified deadline.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    265 views1 page

    6 - Abella VS Francisco - Delay

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    The defendant purchased land from the government in installments and fell behind on payments. He signed a document acknowledging a partial payment of P500 with the balance due on or before December 15, 1928, extendable 15 days. On December 27, 1928, while in Cebu, he authorized his attorney Mabanta to handle the transfer of the land to the plaintiff. Mabanta extended the deadline to January 5, 1929 but refused payment on January 9, 1929, considering the contract rescinded. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that time was essential in the option contract and the plaintiff failed to pay by the specified deadline.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    #6 Delay / MORA

    Abella Vs Francisco
    55 Phil 447

    FACTS:

    Defendant Guillermo B. Francisco purchased from the Government on installments, lots 937 to
    945 of the Tala Estate in Novaliches, Caloocan, Rizal. He was in arrears for some of these
    installments. On the 31st of October, 1928, he signed a document acknowledging payment of
    P500 and the balance to be paid on or before December 15, 1928, extendible fifteen days
    thereafter.

    On December 27th of the same year, the defendant, being in the Province of Cebu, wrote to
    Roman Mabanta of this City of Manila, attaching a power of attorney authorizing him to sign in
    behalf of the defendant all the documents required by the Bureau of Lands for the transfer of the
    lots to the plaintiff. Mabanta, as attorney-in-fact, did what was instructed to him. The plaintiff,
    asked for an extension until January 9, 1929. However, Mabanta, only extended it until January
    5, 1929. When Abella was not able to pay of the said date, Mabanta refused to accept the full
    payment on January 9, 1929 and already considered the contract rescinded. On the same day,
    Mabanta returned by check the sum of P915.31 which the plaintiff had paid.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the defendant be compelled to accept the payment and the plaintiff be judicially
    declared as owner of the land.

    RULING:
    The court relied on the fact that the plaintiff had failed to pay the price of the lots within the
    stipulated time; and that since the contract between plaintiff and defendant was an option for the
    purchase of the lots,’ time was an essential element in it.

    It is to be noted that in the document signed by the defendant, the 15th of December was fixed
    as the date, extendible for fifteen days, for the payment by the plaintiff of the balance of the
    selling price. It has been admitted that the plaintiff did not offer to complete the payment until
    January 9, 1929.

    He contends that Mabanta, as attorney-in-fact for the defendant in this transaction, granted him
    an extension of time until the 9th of January. But Mabanta has stated that he only extended the
    time until the 5th of that month. Mabanta’s testimony on this point is corroborated by that of Paz
    Vicente and by the plaintiff’s own admission to Narciso Javier that his option to purchase those
    lots expired on January 5, 1929.

    The defendant wanted to sell those lots to the plaintiff in order to pay off certain obligations
    which fell due in the month of December, 1928. The time fixed for the payment of the price was
    therefore essential for the defendant, and this view is borne out by his letter to his
    representative Mabanta instructing him to consider the contract rescinded if the price was not
    completed in time. In accordance with article 1124 of the Civil Code, the defendant is entitled to
    resolve the contract for failure to pay the price within the time specified.

    You might also like