G.R. No. L-6565, October 24, 1911
JOSE FLORENDO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On May 11, 1909, Eustaquio P. Foz executed a notarized deed of absolute sale in favor of Jose Florendo, conveying a house and lot for P6,000. Foz acknowledged receipt of P2,000, with the balance of P4,000 payable in Vigan when Foz went there within the month or the next, or if he could not go, authorized Florendo to pay Foz’s debt to the Vigan church from that amount and send the remainder to Manila. Foz went to Vigan, but on June 23, 1909, when Florendo tendered the P4,000, Foz refused to accept, claiming the true price was P10,000 as stated in another instrument held by Florendo. Florendo filed suit for specific performance. Foz defended that he was deceived into signing the deed, believing the price read to him was P10,000. The trial court ruled in favor of Florendo, ordering Foz to deliver the property and denying Foz’s counterclaim. Foz appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the contract of sale is valid and binding despite Foz’s claim of deception regarding the price.
2. Whether Florendo’s obligation to pay the balance of the price is a condition precedent for Foz’s obligation to deliver the property.

RULING

1. Yes, the contract is valid. The Court found that Foz failed to prove his allegation of deception or falsity of the instrument. No evidence was presented to show that the deed was misread to him or that another instrument with a P10,000 price existed. The notarized deed, which Foz signed along with his wife and witnesses, stands as valid and enforceable.

2. No, payment of the price is not a condition precedent for delivery of the property in this case. Applying Article 1466 of the Civil Code, the general rule is that the vendor is not bound to deliver the thing sold if the price has not been paid. However, an exception applies when a period for payment has been fixed in the contract. Here, the contract stipulated a period for payment (when Foz went to Vigan or, if not, after June 1909). Therefore, under the exception, Foz was obligated to deliver the property even if the price was not yet paid. The execution of the public instrument itself constituted a formal delivery (traditio) of the property under Article 1462 of the Civil Code.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, ordering Foz to deliver the property to Florendo. The discussions on the propriety of Florendo’s deposit of the balance were deemed irrelevant given the application of Article 1466. Costs were imposed on Foz.