FELIPE AGONCILLO and his wife vs CRISANTO JAVIER

G.R. No. L-12611

Facts:

Anastasio Alano, Jose Alano, and Florencio Alano solemnly promise to pay Marcela
Mariño within one year the sum of P 2,730.50 on the 27th day of February, 1904.

To secure the payment of their debt they contract the house and lot, in case of
insolvency by virtue of these presents the said house and parcel to Da. Marcela
Mariño, transferring to her all our rights to the possession and ownership of the lot;
and in case the said property upon assessment at the time of the maturity of this
commitment ought to not be of sufficient value to cover the total sum of this
obligation.

Anastasio Alano paid as it were P 200 and no other payment was gotten from the
Alanos in 1908. Anastasio Alano passed on intestate.

Crisanto Javier was named as the chairman of Anastasio Alano’s estate in 1912.

The plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action against Javier, as administrator of the
estate of Anastasio Alano and against Florencio Alano and Jose Alano on March 17,
1916. The defendants replied denying generally the facts alleged in the complaint, and
setting up, as special defenses that:

o Any cause of action which plaintiff might have had against the estate of
Anastasio Alano has been barred by failure of the plaintiff to show her claim to
the committee on claims for allowance;
o That the document upon which plaintiff depends doesn't constitute a substantial
contract; and
o That as to all of the defendants, the action is barred by the general statute of
limitations.

Agoncillo affirmed that the payment of P200.00 by Anastasio Alano in 1908 has
tolled the running of the prescriptive period thus his civil action in 1916 is still within
the 10 year prescriptive period.
Issue:

At the development of the obligation, WON the agreement that the defendant-
appellant, will pay the sum of the money loaned by the appellees or will transfer the
rights to the ownership and possession of the house and lot is valid

Held:

The agreement was valid since it is basically an alternative commitment, which is

explicitly allowed by law. The agreement of the house and lot as collateral to pay the
debt at its maturity is valid. It is undertaking that if obligation isn't paid in cash, it'll be
paid in another way.

The risk of the defendant as to the conveyance of the house and lot was conditional,
being dependent upon their failure to pay the debt in cash. It must follow therefore
that if the action to recoup the debt was prescribed, the action to compel a conveyance
of the house and lot is likewise barred, as the agreement to form such conveyance was
not an independent principal undertaking, but merely an auxiliary alternative
settlement relating to the strategy by which the debt must be paid.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the action is dismissed as to all the
defendants. No costs will be allowed.