JOSHUA P.

SALCE BSABM

Case Digest:
FELIPE AGONCILLO, and his wife, MARCELA MARIÑO, plaintiff-appellees,vs.
CRISANTO JAVIER, administrator of the estate of the late Anastasio Alano.
FLORENCIO ALANO and JOSE ALANO, defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-12611

FACTS:
On the twenty-seventh day of February, 1904, Anastasio Alano, Jose Alano, and
Florencio Alano solemnly promise to pay Marcela Mariño within one year the sum of P 2,
730.50
To secure the payment of their debt they mortgage the house and lot, in case of
insolvency by virtue of these presents the said house and lot to Da. Marcela Mariño,
transferring to her all our rights to the ownership and possession of the lot; and if the said
property upon appraisal at the time of the maturity of this obligation should not be of
sufficient value to cover the total amount of this indebtedness.
In 1908, Anastasio Alano paid only P 200 and no other payment was received from the
Alanos.
In 1912, Anastasio Alano died intestate. Crisanto Javier was named as the administrator
of Anastasio Alano’s estate.
On March 17, 1916, 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.
The defendants answered denying generally the facts alleged in the complaint, and
setting up, as special defenses that
1.any cause of action which plaintiff might have had against the estate of Anastasio Alano
has been barred by failure of the plaintiff to present her claim to the committee on claims
for allowance;
2.that the document upon which plaintiff relies does not constitute a valid mortgage; and
3.that as to all of the defendants, the action is barred by the general statute of limitations.
Agoncillo averred that the payment of P200.00 by Anastasio Alano in 1908 has tolled the
running of the prescriptive period hence his civil action in 1916 is still within the 10 year
prescriptive period.
ISSUE:
WON the agreement that the defendant-appellant, at the maturity of the debt, will pay the
sum of the money lent 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 because it is simply an alternative obligation, which is expressly
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 debt is not paid in money, it will be paid in another
way.
The liability of the defendant as to the conveyance of the house and lot was conditional,
being dependent upon their failure to pay the debt in money. It must follow therefore that
if the action to recover the debt was prescribed, the action to compel a conveyance of the
house and lot is likewise barred, as the agreement to make such conveyance was not an
independent principal undertaking, but merely a subsidiary alternative pact relating to the
method 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.