Security and Trust Company and R. Manhit vs CA and Ferrer G.R. No. 117009. 11 Oct 1995.

Facts: Ferrer was contracted by the SBTC to construct a bldg in Davao. The contract provided that it be finished within 200 working days, it was finished upon stipulated time but additional expenses were incurred amounting to 300k on top of the original cost, these expenses were made known to SBTC and timely demands for the payment of the increased cost were done by Ferrer to SBTC, the latter only recommended that the verified cost is 200k. SBTC contend that in Article IX of the contract, should there be any increase in the expenses, the owner shall equitably make the appropriate adjustment on mutual agreement of both parties. Ferrer filed for damages and the trial court ruled in his favor, the defendants were ordered to pay. On appeal, CA affirmed the tcs decision. Issue: WON SBTC correctly interpreted Article IX of the contract with Ferrer that since there was no mutual agreement between the parties, petitioners' obligation to pay amounts above the original contract price never materialized. Held: No. Under Article 1182 of the Civil Code, a conditional obligation shall be void if its fulfillment depends upon the sole will of the debtor. In the present case, the mutual agreement, the absence of which petitioner bank relies upon to support its non-liability for the increased construction cost, is in effect a condition dependent on petitioner bank's sole will, since private respondent would naturally and logically give consent to such an agreement which would allow him recovery of the increased cost.