8/13/2019 Article 1169 - Causing vs. Bencer

1/2

Article/Topic: Article 1169. Concept of Nature and Delay

Title of the case:Rufina Causing vs. Alfonso Bencer, G.R. No. L-11328, January 15, 1918

Facts of the Case:Rufina Causing, the plaintiff of this case, owned a land for rice and sugar cane in theProvince of Iloilo, having an area of 70 hectares. In the year 1909, negotiations were madebetween her and Alfonso Bencer, the defendant, with a view of sale to the land to him andan agreement was formed by which Causing undertook to convey the property to him forthe sum of P1, 200. In order for the conveyance to be made, they sought the plaintiffsrelative, Casiano Causing, attorney, for legal assistance. Since the plaintiff had nieces ofhers who were then minors and whom she seems to have exercised an informal

guardianship and who had interest in the property, he informed the parties that theconveyance could not be legalized without judicial sanction.The effort to effect the transfer of the title of the deed was abandoned for the time beingbut Bencer had already paid her P800 of the purchase price upon August 14, 1909, tookpossession of the land, with the understanding that he was to pay the balance later and shewould have to procure the judicial approval of the sale as regards to the interests of theminors. In 1910, a new engagement was made with regard to the price paid, which wasBencer should pay P600 in addition of the P800 he had already paid or P1, 400 in all,provided that the plaintiff would give him an extension of time to May 1911 to pay thebalance.

Time went on and neither of the parties performed the engagement; as the plaintiff alleges,Bencers failure may have been due to his lack of ready money or, as the defendant alleges,it may have been due to the plaintiffs reluctance to carry out the engagement, and she alsodid not appear to collect the money at the place stipulated as the place of payment.However, it also may have been due to the fact that the plaintiff was not yet in position toexecute a deed as no steps had been taken to get a judicial approval for the sale of theshares of the minors. However, as the heirs reached majority, the plaintiff successivelyacquired their respective interests by purchase, and before the action in this case wasinstituted, she had become possessor of all their shares. The property meanwhile increasedin value possibly because of the improvements which the defendant claims to have madeon the property. In view of the changed contract, the plaintiff appears to have becomedesirous of rescinding the contract, and brought this suit to annul the contract, recover theproperty, together with the sum of P3, 850, alleged to be due as damages for the use andoccupation of the land by the defendant during the time he has been in possession. Theplaintiff also prayed for general relief.

Issue:The delay in the part of the plaintiff, which was she never procured the judicial approval forthe sale of the land, and the delay of the defendant, which was he did not pay the balanceper se to the agreement resulted to the non-fulfillment of the obligations of the two parties.So, Rufina Causing filed this suit to annul the contract for the sale of a parcel of land,

8/13/2019 Article 1169 - Causing vs. Bencer

2/2

recover the property itself from Alfonso Bencer, and collect the sum of P3, 850 alleged to bedue as damages for the use and occupation of the land by the defendant during the time hehas been in possession.

Decision:The court dismissed the action for the recovery of the land and damages for use andoccupation but gave judgment in plaintiffs favor for P600 with interest at 6% from August14, 1910 until paid.

Ratio Decidendi:The court can see no valid reason for the plaintiff to rescind the contract because this hasbeen a case that entailed a mutual obligation. That is according to Article 1100 of the CivilCode, that no party shall be deemed to be in default if the other does not fulfill, or offer tofulfill his own obligation, and from the time one person obligated fulfills his obligation, the

default begins for the other party. Moreover, it was actually Causing who was in default hererather than the defendant Bencer, as the contract contemplated a conveyance of the entireinterest of the land and the plaintiff clearly obligated herself to that extent. Thus, she wasnot in position to compel Bencer to pay until she could offer him a deed nor is she permittedto rescind the contract on the ground that the defendant failed to pay the balance.For the prayer of general relief, the court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sumof P600 with an interest of 6% per annum from August 14, 1910 for the unpaid balance ofthe purchase money. The right of the plaintiff to recover interest for the period prior to theinstitution of the suit is questionable in point of law, but the justice of allowing it is evident,in view of the fact that the defendant has had continuous use of the property.

Reference:The LawPhil Project. Rufina Causing vs. Alfonso Bencer. Retrieved December 6, 2013from http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1918/jan1918/gr_l-11328_1918.html

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1918/jan1918/gr_l-11328_1918.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1918/jan1918/gr_l-11328_1918.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1918/jan1918/gr_l-11328_1918.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1918/jan1918/gr_l-11328_1918.html