Pequeña maquinaria

occupying parts of the land. The brokers offered that upon downpayment of Php 50000 (to be used for evicting the informal settlers) the respondent is willing to sell. A deed of conditional sale was executed between the parties. The contract stipulates that respondent has 60 days to evict the

informal settlers from the signing. Despite filing an ejectment case, respondent delayed in fulfilling his obligation to evict. Thus, respondent wrote petitioner that she is returning the 50,000 down

payment. Petitioner, through counsel, replied that since a favorable judgment has been rendered then petitioner is willing to undertake the eviction and pursue the sale. Respondent, through counsel insisted that the non compliance of the obligation rendered the conditional sale null and void. Held: the vendor may not demand rescission for a cause traceable to his own failure to evict the squatters within the contractually-stipulated period. The condition in the contract was imposed upon the vendor and not upon the perfection of the contract. Hence, under the law, it is the oblige (vendee in this case) that has the option either to proceed with the agreement (accept the return of the 50,000 as stipulated in the contract) or waive the condition (the 60 day period to evict). (NOTE: it would be different if the condition was imposed on the perfection of the sale. If condition was not met under this kind, then the juridical relationship would not arise). The undertaking of the respondent is not a potestative condition solely dependent on his will (void according to Art. 1182) but a mixed

condition dependent not on the will of the respondent-vendor alone but also of third persons like the informal settlers and government agencies and personnel concerned. Where the so-called "potestative

Digests by 4A 2015

condition" is imposed not on the birth of the obligation but on its fulfillment, only the obligation is avoided, leaving unaffected the obligation itself. Respondent had no right to rescind being the guilty party.

Art. 1183. Impossible conditions, those contrary to good customs or public policy and those prohibited by law shall annul the obligation which depends upon them. If the obligation is divisible, that part thereof which is not affected by the impossible or unlawful condition shall be valid.

The condition not to do an impossible thing shall be considered as not having been agreed upon.

• A condition is possible when it is capable of realization according to nature, law, public policy or good customs.

• A condition is impossible when it is not capable of realization according to nature, law, public policy or good customs.

• Impossibility can be physical (contrary to law of nature) or juridical (contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy).

o Tolentino: juridically impossible when it restricts certain essential rights like not to change domicile, to change or not change religion, not to get married.

• The effect of an impossible condition is to annul the obligation (Article 1183). The effect of an impossible condition regarding donations and succession is different. In donations and succession, an impossible condition is simply disregarded. The distinction can be explained by the fact that Article 1183 refers to onerous obligation whereas donations and succession are gratuitous. • However, if the obligation is divisible and that part of the obligation is not unaffected by the

impossible condition, then the obligation is valid (Article 1183). • Justice Paras distinguishes as follows:

1. Positive condition to do something impossible: whole obligation is void (condition and obligation).

2. Negative condition not to do something impossible: Disregard the condition, the obligation is valid

3. Negative condition not to do something illegal: Valid condition and obligation.

§ Balane sells his property to you and 1 stipulation is that you should not cook meth on the premisesà VALID!

§ It’s a resolutory condition

§ A negative suspensive is the same as a positive resolutory.

• Tolentino notes:

o The condition must be impossible when the contract is entered into; otherwise, art. 1266 or art. 1184 will apply.

o The difference is that under art. 1266 and 1184, there is a valid obligation, which became extinguished. Under art. 1183 the obligation never comes into existence. Effect is the same in either case.

Digests by 4A 2015

obligation as soon as the time expires or if it has become indubitable that the event will not take place.

• This is suspensive.

Art. 1185. The condition that some event will not happen at a determinate time shall render the obligation effective from the moment the time indicated has elapsed, or if it has become evident that the event cannot occur.

If no time has been fixed, the condition shall be deemed fulfilled at such time as may have probably been contemplated, bearing in mind the nature of the obligation.

• This is suspensive.

Art. 1186. The condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment.

Doctrine of Constructive Compliance

• The condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor • Only applies to potestative

• It can apply to mixed.

• If the debtor must do something to give birth to the obligation

• The principle underlying constructive fulfillment of conditions is that a party to a contract may not be excused from performing his promise by the non-occurrence of an event which he himself prevented.

• Requisites:

1. Intent of the debtor to prevent fulfillment of the obligation

§ Where the act of the debtor, however, although voluntary, did not have for its purpose the prevention of the fulfillment of the condition, it will not fall under the doctrine of constructive compliance.

2. Actual prevention of compliance

Tayag v. CA: Sellers entered into a contract of sale with a purchaser. 1 of the conditions of which,