[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
167 views1 page

Abella V Francisco

This case involved a contract for the sale of lots where the buyer, Abella, was to pay the balance of the price by December 15, 1928 or within 15 days thereafter. Abella failed to pay by the deadline and the seller, Francisco, rescinded the contract through his agent. The Supreme Court ruled that time was an essential element of the contract and Francisco was entitled to rescind due to Abella's failure to pay on time.

Uploaded by

John Lord Escatron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
167 views1 page

Abella V Francisco

This case involved a contract for the sale of lots where the buyer, Abella, was to pay the balance of the price by December 15, 1928 or within 15 days thereafter. Abella failed to pay by the deadline and the seller, Francisco, rescinded the contract through his agent. The Supreme Court ruled that time was an essential element of the contract and Francisco was entitled to rescind due to Abella's failure to pay on time.

Uploaded by

John Lord Escatron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Abella v.

Francisco

G.R. No. 32336. December 20, 1930

Facts:

1. Guillermo B. Francisco (Defendant) received from Julio C. Abella (Petitioner)


Php 500 as payment on account of lots with the balance being due on or
before December 15, 1928, extendible 15 days thereafter. Petitioner also
made another payment of Php 415.31 upon demand made by the Defendant.
2. Defendant authorized Ramon Mabanta through a power of attorney to sign
documents required by the Bureau of Lands for the transfer of the lots to the
Petitioner. He likewise instructed Mabanta to inform the Petitioner that the
option would be considered cancelled if the Petitioner failed to pay the
remaining balance and to return the amount already delivered by the
Petitioner.
3. Plaintiff did not pay the rest of the price on January 5 which was the agreed
date but attempted to do so on January 9. Mabanta refused to accept and
regarded the contract rescinded.
4. Plaintiff brought an action to compel the Defendant to execute the deed of
sale upon receipt of the balance of the price and asked that he be judicially
declared owner of said lots and for the Defendant to deliver the same to him.
5. CFI absolved the defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue:

1. WON the time is an essential element of the contract and therefore, the
Defendant is entitled to rescind the contract for failure of the Plaintiff to pay
within the time specified.

Ruling:

1. Yes. The Defendant is entitled to rescind the contract under Article 1124 of
the Civil Code. The reason of the Defendant to sell the said lots was to pay off
certain obligations which are due in the month of December 1928. Hence,
time is an essential element in the transaction.

You might also like