Rodrigo

Enriquez,
Aurea
Soriano de Dizon and Urbano
Dizon,
Jr.,
plaintiffsappellants,
Vs.
Socorro
A.
Ramos,
defendant-appellee.
G.R. No. L-23616 September 30,
1976

PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLIED IN THE CASE

PRESENTED
Section 4 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4.Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. If

two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
meritsinanyoneisavailableasagroundforthedismissal
oftheothers.(4a)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Facts: On November 24, 1958 Enriquez and spouses Dizon sold to Ramos 20
subdivisionlotsinQuezonCityforthesumofP235,056ofwhichonlyP35,056had
been paid.The balance of P200,000 was to be liquidated within 2 years fromthe
dateoftheexecutionofthedeedofsale,withinterestat6%forthe1styearand
12% thereafter until fully paid. To secure the payment of that balance, Ramos
executed in the same document a deed of mortgage in favor of the vendors on
severalparcelsoflandvariouslysituatedinQuezonCity,PampangaandBulacan.
The deed of mortgage embodies certain stipulations which Ramos invoked. But
accordingtotheappellantsthedefendantviolatedthetermsoftheiragreementin
thefollowingrespects:
ThedefendantrefusetopaythesumofP200,000withinthestipulatedperiod.
ThemortgageonBulacanpropertywasneverregisteredand,
Therealtytaxfor1959onthelotsmortgagewerenotpaidbythedefendant.

Ramos admit that she has not paid the realty taxes and has not registered the
mortgage on Bulacan property but argues that it was a minor ones and still her
obligation to pay the sum of P200,000 has not arisen as no previous notice and
demand for payment has been made and according to her the road is not
completed because the appellants have not yet planted trees nor put up water
facilitiesasrequiredbytheordinance.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The court held that the non-payment of 1959 realty taxes as well as the nonregistration of the mortgaged on Bulacan estate by the defendant were minor
matters. On the issue of the completion of road the appellant adduced the
testimonies of 2 witnesses that the road was completed on May 9, 1960 in
accordancewiththeordinancesofQuezonCityandthereisnothinginOrdinance
2969 which would indicate that a street may be considered completed with water
facilitiesare built on the subdivision and these activities aredefinitelysegregable.
Astobeallegedlackofpreviousnoticecompletionanddemandforpayment,the
fillingofthecaseissufficientnoticetothedefendantofthecompletionoftheroads
in question and of the appellees desire to be paid the purchase price of the
questionedlots.

ISSUE PRESENTED:
Whether or not Ramos should pay her balance to
Enriquez and spouses Dizon even though she is
notyetfullysatisfiedwithherdemand?

SUPREME COURT DECISION:

Ruling:Yes,theeffectofsuchdemandretroactstothedayoftheconstitutionof
the defendant obligation as it was stated in Art. 1187 provides that THE
EEFECTS OF A CONDITIONAL OBLIGATION TO GIVE, ONCE THE
CONDITION HAS BEEN FULFILLED, SHALL RETROACT TO THE DAY OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE OBLIGATION. her demand on the road is
alreadyconsideredcompletedandthefillingofthecaseagainstherissufficient
notice to her therefore she is obligated to pay her balance of P200,000 to the
appellantswithin2yearsfromthedatetheroadsinquestionarecompleted.