2
Araneta vs. Phi. Sugar Estate Dev., Inc 20 SCRA 330/GR L-22558 Art. 1197 Scope Art. 1197 Facts Petitioner and Respondent entered into a contract of purchase and sale with mortgage whereas P sold a big tract of land to R subject to following conditions: 1) that buyer will build on said land the Sto. Domingo Church and Convent and 2) that seller will construct streets surrounding the land which shall be named “Sto. Domingo A venue” R finished the construction of the church will P was unable to finish the construction of the streets because a third party, occupying the middle part thereof, refuse to vacate the same R filed a complaint seeking P to comply with the obligation and/or pay damages in case of failure/refusal RTC and CA decided in favor of R a nd gave P 2 years to comply with its obligation Held 1. Art . 1197 inv olves two ste p proce sse s: 1) the Cour t must fir st determine that the obligation does not fix period (or that the period is made to depend upon the will of the debtor), but from the nature and the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended (Art 1197 1&2) and 2) the Court must proceed to second step and deci de wha t peri od was probably contemplated by parties. Even on the assumption that the court should have found out that no reasonable time or period at all had been fixed, the COMPLAINT NOT HAVING SOUGHT THE COURT SHOULD SET A PERIOD, the court could not proceed to do so unless the complaint is amended  No basis to support the conclusion that period should be set at two years after finality of  judgment, considering that the land was occupied by squatters. Parties must comply with legal  processes in evicting the squatters. Reasonable time: at the date all the squatters on affected areas are finally evicted

Araneta vs. Phil Sugar

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

8/3/2019 Araneta vs. Phil Sugar

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/araneta-vs-phil-sugar 1/1

Araneta vs. Phi. Sugar Estate Dev., Inc

20 SCRA 330/GR L-22558

Art. 1197

Scope

➢ Art. 1197

Facts

➢ Petitioner and Respondent entered into a contract of purchase and sale with mortgage whereas P

sold a big tract of land to R subject to following conditions: 1) that buyer will build on said landthe Sto. Domingo Church and Convent and 2) that seller will construct streets surrounding the

land which shall be named “Sto. Domingo Avenue”➢ R finished the construction of the church will P was unable to finish the construction of the

streets because a third party, occupying the middle part thereof, refuse to vacate the same➢ R filed a complaint seeking P to comply with the obligation and/or pay damages in case of 

failure/refusal➢ RTC and CA decided in favor of R and gave P 2 years to comply with its obligation

Held

1. Art. 1197 involves two step processes: 1) the Court must first determine that the obligation

does not fix period (or that the period is made to depend upon the will of the debtor), but

from the nature and the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended (Art

1197 1&2) and 2) the Court must proceed to second step and decide what period was

probably contemplated by parties.

➢ Even on the assumption that the court should have found out that no reasonable time or period

at all had been fixed, the COMPLAINT NOT HAVING SOUGHT THE COURT SHOULD

SET A PERIOD, the court could not proceed to do so unless the complaint is amended➢  No basis to support the conclusion that period should be set at two years after finality of 

 judgment, considering that the land was occupied by squatters. Parties must comply with legal

 processes in evicting the squatters. Reasonable time: at the date all the squatters on affected

areas are finally evicted