TAYAG and heirs of GALICIA v.

CA and ALBRIGADO LEYVA (1993)

Short version/ Summary: Albrigado Leyva filed an action for specific performance against vendors-petitioners
(heirs of Galicia) on account of their reluctance to abide by the Deed of Conveyance executed between Galicia Sr.
and Celerina Labuguin (vendors) and Leyva (vendee). The condition of the Deed of Conveyance (pertinent to our
topic) is this: P10,000 represents the VENDORS’ indebtedness with the Philippine Veterans Bank which is hereby
assumed by the VENDEE. The vendors assert breach of such condition when vendee Leyva paid only P6,926.41 to
Philippine Veteran’s Bank, while the difference of the indebtedness came from vendor Celerina Labuguin. Leyva
claims that the vendors voluntarily prevented the fulfillment of her obligation to pay P10,000 to Philippine Veterans
Bank when Celerina Labuguin paid part of such debt to Philippine Veterans Bank.

FACTS:

Albrigado Leyva filed an action for specific performance against heirs of Juan Galicia, Sr. on account of their
reluctance to abide by the Deed of Conveyance executed between Galicia Sr. and Celerina Labuguin (vendors) and
Leyva (vendee). The deed of Conveyance had the following terms:

1. P3,000 is hereby acknowledged to have been paid upon the execution of this agreement.

2. P10,000 shall be paid within 10 days from and after the execution of this agreement.

3. P10,000 represents the VENDORS’ indebtedness with the Philippine Veterans Bank which is hereby
assumed by the VENDEE.

4. The balance of P27,000 shall be paid within 1 year from and after the date of execution of this
instrument.

The vendors assert breach of condition 3 when vendee Leyva paid only P6,926.41 to Philippine Veteran’s Bank,
while the difference of the indebtedness came from vendor Celerina Labuguin.

Leyva claims that the vendors voluntarily prevent the fulfillment of her obligation to pay P10,000 to Philippine
Veterans Bank when Celerina Labuguin paid part of such debt to Philippine Veterans Bank. Leyva also claims full
payment and compliance with the conditions of the Deed of Conveyance.

ISSUE: Whether the vendors are only obligees in this case and therefore Art. 1186 on constructive fulfillment
should not be applied, because the provision speaks only of the obligor? NO. Art. 1186 applies.

RULING:
In a reciprocal obligation like a contract of purchase, both parties are mutually obligors and also obliges, and  any of
the contracting parties may, upon non-fulfillment by the other privy of his part of the prestation, rescind the
contract or seek fulfillment.

In short, it is puerile for vendors to say that they are the only obligees under the contract since they are also bound
as obligors to respect the stipulation in permitting vendee Leyva to assume the loan with the Philippine Veterans
Bank which vendors impeded when they paid the balance of said loan. As vendors, they are supposed to execute
the final deed of sale upon full payment of the balance as determined hereafter.