Agcaoili vs.

GSIS
165 SCRA 1
Facts:
In this case, appellant GSIS approved an
application of the appellee Agcaoli for the purchase
of a house and lot in the GSIS Housing Project at
Nangka, Marikina, subject to the condition that the
latter should forthwith occupy the house, a condition
that Agcaoli tried to fulfill but could not because the
house was absolutely uninhabitable. However,
Agcaoli ask a homeless friend, a certain Villanueva,
to stay in the premises as some sort of watchman,
pending completion of the construction of the house.
Agcaoli after paying the first installment and
other fees, having thereafter refused to make further
payment of other stipulated installments until GSIS
had made the house habitable; and appellant having
refused to do so, opting instead to cancel the award
and demanded the vacation by Agcaoli of the
premises; and the latter having sued the GSIS in the
Court of First Instance of Manila for specific
performance with damages and having obtained a
favorable judgment, the cases was appealed by the
GSIS.
Issue:
Whether or not Agcaoli is entitled for specific
performance with damages.
Held:
Appeal of GSIS must fail.There was then a
perfected contract of sale between the parties; there
had been a meeting of minds upon the purchase by
Agcaoli of a determinate house and lot from GSIS at
a definite price which is payable in amortizations
and from that moment the parties acquired the right
to reciprocally demand performance. It was, to be
sure, the duty of the GSIS, as seller, to deliver the
thing soled in acondition suitable for its enjoyment
by the buyer, in other words to deliver the house
subject of the contract in a reasonably livable state.
This it failed to do.Since GSIS failed to fulfill its
obligation, and was not willing to put the house in a
habitable state, it cannot invoke Agcaoli’s
suspension of payment as cause to cancel the
contract between them. In recipient obligation,
neither party incur in delay of the other does not
comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner
with what is incumbent upon him. Nor may the
GSIS succeed in justifying its cancellation of the
award by the claim tha Agcaoli had not complied
with the condition of occupying the house within
three (3) days. The record shows that Agcaoli did try
to fulfill the condition. Finally appellant having
caused the ambiguity as the exact prestation of the
agreement, the question of interpretation arising
therefrom, should be resolved against it.