Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 117 views

    CIVREV Hermosa Vs Longara

    Uploaded by

    Jimenez Lorenz
    Longara is trying to enforce claims against the estate of Fernando Hermosa, Sr. for credit advances made to Hermosa, his son Francisco, and grandson Fernando Jr. The heirs argue the obligations are void as the condition for payment depended solely on Hermosa's will. The Court ruled the condition was mixed, not potestative, as it depended partly on Hermosa's will to sell property in Spain and partly on chance with the sale. However, the Court denied claims for advances made to the grandson after Hermosa's death, as the obligation to support ends upon death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CIVREV Hermosa Vs Longara

    Uploaded by

    Jimenez Lorenz
    117 views2 pages
    Longara is trying to enforce claims against the estate of Fernando Hermosa, Sr. for credit advances made to Hermosa, his son Francisco, and grandson Fernando Jr. The heirs argue the obligations are void as the condition for payment depended solely on Hermosa's will. The Court ruled the condition was mixed, not potestative, as it depended partly on Hermosa's will to sell property in Spain and partly on chance with the sale. However, the Court denied claims for advances made to the grandson after Hermosa's death, as the obligation to support ends upon death.

    Original Title

    CIVREV-Hermosa-Vs-Longara

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Longara is trying to enforce claims against the estate of Fernando Hermosa, Sr. for credit advances made to Hermosa, his son Francisco, and grandson Fernando Jr. The heirs argue the obligations are void as the condition for payment depended solely on Hermosa's will. The Court ruled the condition was mixed, not potestative, as it depended partly on Hermosa's will to sell property in Spain and partly on chance with the sale. However, the Court denied claims for advances made to the grandson after Hermosa's death, as the obligation to support ends upon death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    117 views2 pages

    CIVREV Hermosa Vs Longara

    Uploaded by

    Jimenez Lorenz
    Longara is trying to enforce claims against the estate of Fernando Hermosa, Sr. for credit advances made to Hermosa, his son Francisco, and grandson Fernando Jr. The heirs argue the obligations are void as the condition for payment depended solely on Hermosa's will. The Court ruled the condition was mixed, not potestative, as it depended partly on Hermosa's will to sell property in Spain and partly on chance with the sale. However, the Court denied claims for advances made to the grandson after Hermosa's death, as the obligation to support ends upon death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-5267           October 27, 1953

    LUZ HERMOSA, as administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Fernando Hermosa, Sr., and FERNANDO
    HERMOSA, JR., petitioners,
    vs.
    EPIFANIO M. LONGARA, respondent.

    FACTS:

    Longara is a creditor of the late Fernando Hermosa, Sr. and is trying to enforce his claims against the
    estate of the latter.

    Php 2341.41 – credit advances to intestate (1932-44)

    Php 12,924.12 – credit advances to his son Francisco Hermosa

    Php 3772 – credit advances to grandson Fernando Hermosa, Jr. (1945-47, after death of intestate on
    December,1944)

    Claimant presented evidence that the intestate had asked for the advances for himself and for his family
    on condition that payment should be made by Fernando Hermosa, Sr. as soon as he receive funds
    derived from the sale of his property in Spain (in other words, payable as soon as Hermosa’s property in
    Spain was sold and he received money from the sale).

    CA approved his claims.

    The heirs of Hermosa argued that the claims were based on an obligation subject to a potestative
    condition, therefore the obligation is void per Art.1115 of the old CC.

    Court held that the condition is not a potestative one, but a mixed one, and therefore the obligation was
    still valid, Longara’s claims are still enforceable.

    ISSUES:

    1.) WON the condition in question is a potestative condition.

    2.) WON the 3rd group of claims (credits furnished to intestate’s grandson, AFTER death of intestate
    should be allowed.

    RULING:

    In Art. 1115 (now Art. 1182). It provides that when the fulfillment of the condition depends upon the
    sole will of the debtor, the conditional obligation shall be void. If it depends upon chance or upon the
    will of a third person, the obligation shall take effect in conformity with the provisions of this Code.

    The SC ruled that It is a mixed condition. Condition does not depend exclusively upon will of the debtor,
    but also upon other circumstances beyond his power or control. It implies that the intestate had
    already decided to sell his house, or at least that he made his creditors believe that he had done so, and
    that all that was left to make his obligation (to pay debt) demandable is the consummation of the sale
    and the remittance of the price.

    The will to sell on the debtor’s part was therefore either present in fact, or legally presumed to exist,
    although the price and other conditions thereof were still within his discretion. Therefore, the obligation
    is not purely a potestative one, but a mixed one, depending partly upon the will of the debtor (the
    intestate), and partly upon chance, the presence of the buyer of the property for the price and under
    the conditions desired by the intestate.

    The obligation is clearly governed by the second sentence of article 1115 of the old Civil Code (8
    Manresa, 126). The condition is, besides, a suspensive condition, upon the happening of which the
    obligation to pay is made dependent. And upon the happening of the condition, the debt became
    immediately due and demandable. (Article 1114, old Civil Code; 8 Manresa, 119).

    2.) NO. The obligation to furnish support is a personal one and is extinguished upon the death of the
    principal. Therefore the decision approving the third set of claims should be reversed.

    You might also like