SALUD PATENTE, plaintiff-appellee vs.

ROMAN OMEGA, defendant-appellant

G.R. No. L-4433 May 29, 1953
PABLO, J.

FACTS:
Ramon Omega owes Salud Patente PHP 1,600 as shown in a promissory note which reads as follows:

Villaba, Leyte, August 24, 1949.

This is to acknowledge receipt of the sum of One Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (P1,600)
from Salud Patente, Filipino citizen, of age, single, also a resident of Villaba, Leyte, like
myself, as my indebtedness to her. I am going to pay debt to her, her heirs, assigns and
successors, in the said sum of P1,600 in Philippine currency, as soon as possible or as soon
as I have money.

This debt is not covered by any security because of the intimate relations of my family to
her.

This sum covers my previous indebtedness to her which I received from her on May 4, 1947
and previous thereto.

I hereby certify that I have to pay this whole indebtedness to her, before I exercise my right of
repurchase of an agricultural land, situated in Tag-alang, Villaba, Leyte, bearing Tax No.
2662, which I sold to her under a pacto de retro sale.

The Judge issued a ruling ordering the payment of the debt within the period of four months from the
date of its enactment, with costs.

At the hearing of the case in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, to which this case was taken on appeal,
both parties had made an agreement to read as follows: “That, upon the face of the promissory note in
question, it is apparent That term is not fixed therein definite and that its performance is left to the will
of the debtor-defendant.”

ISSUES: Whether or not the Judge of Villalba, Leyte had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present
case and to fix a definite term for the payment of the indebtedness in question by the defendant?

HELD: Yes. Art. 1180. When the debtor binds himself to pay when his means permit him to do so, the
obligation shall be deemed to be one with a period, subject to the provisions of article 1197.
Article 1197 . If the obligation does not fix a period, but from its nature and the circumstances it can be
inferred that a period was intended, the courts may fix the duration thereof.

The courts shall also fix the duration of the period when it depends upon the will of the debtor.

In every case, the courts shall determine such period as may under the circumstances have been
probably contemplated by the parties. Once fixed by the courts, the period cannot be changed by them.

According to the agreement of facts submitted by the parties, the question to be solved is the following:
If the term of payment has been left to the will of the debtor, does the condition of payment "as soon as
possible or as soon as I have money" nullify the condition?

Court held that when the deadline for payment of an obligation is left to the sole will of the debtor
resulting in the annulment of the condition does not make it into a pure obligation. The obligation is
deemed with a period or term. The two promissory notes show that the plaintiff intended to grant the
defendant a period within which to pay his debts under the condition that the debtor will pay “as soon as
possible or as soon as I have money “. Since there is an implied intention for the plaintiff to give the
defendant a period for payment, though it wasn’t expressly stipulated in the promissory note, it does not
make the obligation pure wherein the obligation to pay is immediately demandable.

REMEDY FOR THE CREDITOR WHEN NO DEFINITE PERIOD ID FIXED:

As the promissory notes do not fix this period, it is for the court to fix the same. The creditor cannot
immediately demand for payment.

Creditor's recourse in such a case is to go to court to demand the fixing of the term of payment.