Francisco Guttierez Repide vs. Afzetius and Afzetius, 39 Phil. 190

digested by LLB 1-4 College of Law, Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Facts: The subject of specific performance, with reference to its common law and civil law status, is to be considered on this appeal. The particular action is for the specific performance of a contract for the sale and purchase of seal estate.

The plaintiff is the owner of a certain parcel of realty, the defendants made a proposition to the plaintiff for the purchase of this property. The property was to be mortgaged to the plaintiff to rescue the payment of this balance. The plaintiff proceeded to have survey made of the land and to prepare the deed and mortgage. Expenses where incurred for these purposes. The deed was ready when the defendants were notified to appear and sign the same but they failed to this and wrote a letter to plaintiff.

Plaintiff was, and still is, willing to execute the deed in accordance with the terms agreed upon with the defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff, in his action in the court of First Instance of the City of Manila, asked judgment against the defendants condemning them to sign the deed and mortgage to the land in question, and to pay the purchase price stipulated with costs.

Issue: Whether or not the defendants are able to perform the contract is a matter of defense, and there is no special defense on that subject in the answer.

Ruling: The judgment then was in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, without prejudice to any other remedy which the plaintiff might have, and without any finding as to the costs.

The plaintiff and appellant bases his argument or articles 1254, 1258, 1278, 1450, and 1279 of the Civil Code. The provisions of the five articles first cited and others that could be mentioned merely tend to corroborate what is self-evident, namely, the existence of a valid contract between the parties. Indisputably, there has been an offer and an acceptance, and all that remained to effectuate the contract was the execution of the deed and the mortgage.

Here we have presented a good and valid contract, bilateral in character, and free from all taint of fraud. The stability or commercial transaction requires that the rights of the seller be protected just as effectively as the right of the buyer. If this plaintiff had refused to comply with the contract, specific performance of the obligation could have been asked by the defendants. Just as surely should the plaintiff who has lived up to his bargain and who has been put to expense to do so, be permitted to coerce the defendant into going through with the contract.

The excuse of the defendants is that they do not now have the money to pay the first installment. In other words, they plead impossibility of performance. The rule of equity jurisprudence in such a case is that mere pecuniary inability to fulfill an engagement does not discharge the obligation of the contract, nor does it constitute any defense to a decree for specific performance.

Judgment reversed.