Florentino v. Encarnacion, 79 SCRA 192

129.
STIPULATION IN FAVOR OF A THIRD PERSON

FLORENTINO V. ENCARNACION
G.R. No. L-27696. September 30, 1977.
GUERRERO, J;
Doctrine:
The stipulation (Exhibit O-1) is part of an extrajudicial partition (Exh. O) duly

agreed and signed by the parties, hence the same must bind the contracting
parties thereto and its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one
of them (Art. 1308, N.C.C.).
Facts:
This case is an appeal from the decision of the court of first instance in
Ilocos Sur in Land Registration (LR) Case No. N-310. Petitioners herein
Florentino, Arce, and others filed an application for the registration under Act
496 of a parcel of agricultural land located in Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. The
application alleged among other things that the applicants are the common
and pro-indiviso owners in fee simple of the said land with the improvements
existing thereon; that to the best of their knowledge and belief, there is no
mortgage, lien or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting said land,
nor any other person having any estate or interest thereon, legal or
equitable, remainder, reservation or in expectancy; that said applicants had
acquired the aforesaid land thru and by inheritance from their predecessors
in interest, lately from their aunt.
Miguel Florentino asked the court to include as stipulation labeled as Exhibit

O-1 as an encumbrance on the land sought to be registered, and cause the
entry of the same on the face of the title that will finally be issued. Opposing
its entry on the title as an encumbrance, petitioners-appellees Salvador
Encarnacion, Sr., Salvador Encarnacion, Jr. and Angel Encarnacion filed on
October 3, 1966 a manifestation seeking to withdraw their application on
their respective shares of the land sought to be registered. The withdrawal
was opposed by the petitioners-appellants.
The petitioner-appellants filed their reply and questioned the jurisdiction of

the registration court. Such petition was denied.
Thus, the petition in the court contending that:
That the lower court erred in concluding that the stipulation embodied in
Exhibit O on religious expenses is just an arrangement, stipulation, or grant
revocable at the unilateral option of the co-owners.
That the lower court erred in finding and concluding that the encumbrance
or religious expenses embodied in Exhibit O-1, the extrajudicial partition
between the co-heirs, is binding only on the applicants Miguel Florentino,
Rosario Encarnacion de Florentino, Manuel Arce, Jose Florentino, Antonio
Florentino, Victorino Florentino, Remedios Encarnacion and Severina
Encarnacion.
Issue:
Is the stipulation embodied in Exhibit 0-1 on religious expenses is just an

arrangement, stipulation, or grant revocable at the unilateral option of the
co-owners?
Ruling:
No. The stipulation embodied in Exhibit O-1 on religious expenses is not

revocable at the unilateral option of the co-owners and neither is it binding
only on the petitioners. It is also binding on the oppositors-appellees.
The stipulation (Exhibit O-1) is part of an extrajudicial partition (duly

agreed and signed by the parties, hence the same must bind the
contracting parties thereto and its validity or compliance cannot be left to
the will of one of them (Art. 1308, N.C.C.). Under Art. 1311 of the New
Civil Code, this stipulation takes effect between the parties, their assigns
and heirs.
The court ruled that said stipulation is a stipulation pour autrui. A
stipulation pour autrui is a stipulation in favor of a third person conferring a
clear and deliberate favor upon him, and which stipulation is merely a part
of a contract entered into by the parties, neither of whom acted as agent of
the third person, and such third person may demand its fulfillment
provided that he communicates his acceptance to the obligor before it is
revoked. The requisites are: (1) that the stipulation in favor of a third
person should be a part, not the whole, of the contract; (2) that the
favorable stipulation should not be conditioned or compensated by any kind
of obligation whatever; and (3) neither of the contracting parties bears the
legal representation or authorization of third party. Since the third person,
the church, in this case accepted such stipulation and the petitioner-
appellants failed to institute the revocation prior to the acceptance.
Hence, the stipulation (Exhibit O-1) cannot now be revoked by any of the
stipulators at their own option. This must be so because of Article 1257,
Civil Code and the cardinal rule of contracts that it has the force of law
between the parties.

Florentino v. Encarnacion, 79 SCRA 192

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Florentino v. Encarnacion, 79 SCRA 192

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Florentino v. Encarnacion, 79 SCRA 192

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

129.

STIPULATION IN FAVOR OF A THIRD PERSON

The stipulation (Exhibit O-1) is part of an extrajudicial partition (Exh. O) duly

Miguel Florentino asked the court to include as stipulation labeled as Exhibit

The petitioner-appellants filed their reply and questioned the jurisdiction of

Is the stipulation embodied in Exhibit 0-1 on religious expenses is just an

No. The stipulation embodied in Exhibit O-1 on religious expenses is not

The stipulation (Exhibit O-1) is part of an extrajudicial partition (duly

You might also like