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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    Victorias Planters v. Victorias Milling, G.R. No. L-6648, July 25, 1955 - BRAVO

    Uploaded by

    Jaime Rariza Jr.
    The parties entered into a 30-year milling contract, but during WWII and postwar reconstruction, milling was suspended for 6 years due to force majeure. The petitioner argued this terminated the contract after 30 years, while the respondent argued they were still obligated to deliver cane for the 6 missed years. The court affirmed the contract was not extended, as the force majeure clause only relieved obligations during suspension and did not stop the running of the 30-year period. Requiring delivery after 30 years would effectively extend the contract terms.

    Copyright:

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

    Victorias Planters v. Victorias Milling, G.R. No. L-6648, July 25, 1955 - BRAVO

    Uploaded by

    Jaime Rariza Jr.
    64 views2 pages
    The parties entered into a 30-year milling contract, but during WWII and postwar reconstruction, milling was suspended for 6 years due to force majeure. The petitioner argued this terminated the contract after 30 years, while the respondent argued they were still obligated to deliver cane for the 6 missed years. The court affirmed the contract was not extended, as the force majeure clause only relieved obligations during suspension and did not stop the running of the 30-year period. Requiring delivery after 30 years would effectively extend the contract terms.

    Original Description:

    NS

    Original Title

    12. Victorias Planters v. Victorias Milling, G.R. No. L-6648, July 25, 1955_ BRAVO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The parties entered into a 30-year milling contract, but during WWII and postwar reconstruction, milling was suspended for 6 years due to force majeure. The petitioner argued this terminated the contract after 30 years, while the respondent argued they were still obligated to deliver cane for the 6 missed years. The court affirmed the contract was not extended, as the force majeure clause only relieved obligations during suspension and did not stop the running of the 30-year period. Requiring delivery after 30 years would effectively extend the contract terms.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    64 views2 pages

    Victorias Planters v. Victorias Milling, G.R. No. L-6648, July 25, 1955 - BRAVO

    Uploaded by

    Jaime Rariza Jr.
    The parties entered into a 30-year milling contract, but during WWII and postwar reconstruction, milling was suspended for 6 years due to force majeure. The petitioner argued this terminated the contract after 30 years, while the respondent argued they were still obligated to deliver cane for the 6 missed years. The court affirmed the contract was not extended, as the force majeure clause only relieved obligations during suspension and did not stop the running of the 30-year period. Requiring delivery after 30 years would effectively extend the contract terms.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    MAIN TOPIC – Different Kind Of Obligations : Resolutionary

    FACTS:

    The petitioners Victorias Planters Association, Inc. and North Negros Planters Association, Inc.
    and the respondent Victorias Milling Co., Inc entered into a milling contract whereby they stipulated a
    30-year period within which the sugar cane produced by the petitioner would be milled by the
    respondent central. The parties also stipulated that in the event of force majuere, the contract shall be
    deemed suspended during this period. During the World War II comprising of 4 years and the post war
    period comprising of 2 years the petitioners was not able to produce sugarcane and the sugar central is
    destroyed. In view of the 30-year period of the milling contract the petitioner contended that the
    contract is deemed terminated. The respondent stated that the contract speaks of “30 years milling
    period” not “30 years in time” and petitioners were required to deliver the sugar cane which they failed
    to deliver during the 6 years. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners. From this judgment the
    respondent corporation has appealed.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the petitioners be compelled to deliver sugar cane to the appellant for six more
    years to make up for what they failed to deliver during fortuitous event.

    HELD

    No. The period of six years—four during the Japanese occupation when the appellant did not
    operate its mill and the last two during which the appellant reconstructed its mill—cannot be deducted
    from the thirty-year period stipulated in the contracts. The stipulation in the contract that in the event
    of force majeure the contract shall be deemed suspended during said period does not mean that the
    happening of any of those events stops the running of the period agreed upon. It only relieves the
    parties from the fulfillment of their respective obligations during that time —the petitioners from
    delivering sugar cane and the respondent central from milling it.To require the planters to deliver the
    sugar cane which they failed to deliver during the fortuitous event is to demand from the obligors the
    fulfillment of an obligation which was impossible of performance at the time it became due. The obligee
    not being entitled to demand from the obligors the performance of the latters’ part of the contracts
    under those circumstances cannot later on demand its fulfillment. The performance of what the law has
    written off cannot be demanded and required. The prayer that the petitioners be compelled to deliver
    sugar cane for six more years to make up for what they failed to deliver, the fulfillment of which was
    impossible, if granted, would in effect be an extension of the terms of the contracts entered into by and
    between the parties.

    DISPOSITIVE PORTION :

    The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
    DOCTRINE

    Resolutory when the obligation is demandable at once, although it is terminated upon the
    arrival of a day certain

    You might also like