ROMERO V.
COURT OF APPEALS The injured party may choose between the
G.R. NO. 107207, NOVEMBER 23, 1995
VITUG, J.
BELGIRA (GROUP 5)
PETITIONER: Virgilio R. Romero (hereinafter
Romero)
RESPONDENT: Enriqueta Chua vda. De
Ongsiong (hereinafter Ongsiong)
TOPIC:
Conditional obligations
TERM(S):
Conditional obligation is one whose
consequences are subject in one way or
another to the fulfilment of a condition.
(Obligations and Contracts, De Leon.)
Condition is a future and uncertain event,
upon the happening of which, the effectivity
or extinguishment of an obligation (or rights)
subject to it depends (Obligations and
Contracts, De Leon.)
LAWS/PROVISIONS:
The New Civil Code, Art. 1545
Where the obligation of either party to a
contract of sale is subject to any condition
which is not performed, such party may
refuse to proceed with the contract or he
may waive performance of the condition. If
the other party has promised that the
condition should happen or be performed,
such first mentioned party may also treat the
nonperformance of the condition as a
breach of warranty.
Where the ownership in the thing has not
passed, the buyer may treat the fulfillment
by the seller of his obligation to deliver the
same as described and as warranted
expressly or by implication in the contract of
sale as a condition of the obligation of the
buyer to perform his promise to accept and
pay for the thing.
The New Civil Code, Art. 1191
The power to rescind obligations is implied
in reciprocal ones, in case one of the
obligors should not comply with what is
incumbent upon him.
fulfillment and the rescission of the
obligation, with the payment of damages in
either case. He may also seek rescission,
even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the
latter should become impossible.
The court shall decree the rescission
claimed, unless there be just cause
authorizing the fixing of a period.
This is understood to be without prejudice to
the rights of third persons who have
acquired the thing, in accordance with
Articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage
law.
CASE SUMMARY:
Romero, the petitioner, and Ongsiong, the
respondent, entered into a contract of
conditional sale involving a parcel of land.
Romero was to advance an amount, which
he did, and Ongsiong was supposed to eject
the squatters living on her land, which she
failed to do.
Ongsiong demanded the rescission of the
contract because of her failure to perform
her obligation.
The Court ruled that Ongsiong had no right
to rescind the contract for she was the one
who breached the contract she was not
the injured party.
FACTS:
Romero, a civil engineer engaged in the
business of perlites, decided to put up a
warehouse in Metro Manila.
Ongsiongs land was selected through the
suggestion made by one Alfonso Flores and
his wife. The lot was covered by TCT No.
361402, measuring 1,952 square meters.
On June 9, 1988, a contract denominated
Deed of Conditional Sale, was executed
between Romero and Ongsiong. The terms
and conditions are the following:
o The purchase price of the land was
P1,561,000.
o P50,000 was to be paid upon signing
and execution of the contract.
o The balance would be paid 45 days
after the removal of all squatters from
the property.
Ongsiong filed a complaint for ejectment
against Melchor Mura and 29 other squatter
families with the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Paraaque.
 On April 7, 1989, Ongsiong sent a letter to not on the will of the vendor alone but
Romero seeking to return the P50,000 since also of third persons like the squatters
she could not get rid of the squatters. and government agencies and
Ten days later, Romero refused the tender personnel concerned.
and offered to eject the squatters himself o Article 1545 allows the obligee to
provided that the expenses incurred shall be choose between proceeding with the
chargeable to the purchase price. This agreement or waiving the performance
willingness was later reiterated by Romero. of the condition.
On June 19, 1989, Atty. Joaquin Yuseco, o The right of resolution of a party to
counsel of Ongsiong, advised Atty. Sergio an obligation under Article 1191 of
Apostol, counsel of Romero, that the the Civil Code is predicated on a
contract was rendered null and void by breach of faith by the other party that
virtue of Ongiongs failure to evict the violates the reciprocity between
squatters. Atty. Yuseco added that them.
Ongsiong decited to retain the property.
Four days later, Atty. Apostol replied that
Ongsiong had no right to rescind the
contract and that Romero demands the
execution of the absolute Deed of Sale. He
also alleged that Ongsiong deliberately
refused to exert efforts xxx and [decided to
retain the property because of the] sudden
increase in the value of realties in the
surrounding area.
On June 27, 1989, Ongsiong filed for
rescission of the contract plus damages with
the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The RTC
ruled in favor of Romero.
The squatters were still in the area.
Ongsiong appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The CA ruled in favor of Ongsiong.
Failing to obtain a reconsideration, Romero
filed a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:
WON Ongsiong had the right to rescind the
contract

RULING:
The Court reversed the ruling of the CA and
upheld the conditions of the original
contract. Ongsiongs rescission is not
warranted. She is not the injured parry.
o From the moment the contract is
perfected, the parties are bound not
only to the fulfillment of what has
been expressly stipulated but also to
all the consequences xxx
o The ejectment of the squatters is a
condition the operative act of which sets
into motion the period of compliance by
petitioner of his own obligation.
o The undertaking required of Ongsiong
constituted a mixed condition dependent