SUBJECT Art.

1186
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 Veterans 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.
RTC and CA: Ruled in favor of Leyva and applied Article 1186 of the Civil Code on
constructive fulfillment. Celerinas act of paying part of the debt to Philippine Veterans Bank
was a ploy under Article 1186 of the Civil Code that prematurely prevented Leyva from
paying the installment fully and for the purpose of withdrawing the title to the lot.
DEFENSE: The vendors argue that Art. 1186 should not have been appreciated because they
are the obligees while the proviso in point speaks of the obligor.
SC: In a reciprocal obligation like a contract of purchase, both parties are mutually obligors
and also obligees. It is puerile for the 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 the 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.
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 Veterans Bank, while the difference of the indebtedness came from vendor
Celerina Labuguin.

Vendors also claim breach of condition 4, that not a single centavo of the P27,000 balance
was paid. (not impt to our topic)
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.
Procedure:
RTC: Ruled in favor of Leyva (vendee) on the basis of constructive fulfillment under Art.
1186. Leyva paid more than P6,000.00 to the Philippine Veterans Bank but Celerina
Labuguin, the sister and co-vendor of Juan Galicia, Sr. paid P3,778.77 which circumstance
was construed to be a ploy under Article 1186 of the Civil Code that "prematurely prevented
plaintiff from paying the installment fully" and "for the purpose of withdrawing the title to
the lot".
CA: Affirmed RTC
Issue/s: 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.
Held/Ratio:
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.
Digested by: Agee Romero