This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-10 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| To secure a DBP-guaranteed foreign loan did not solely depend on the diligence or the sole will of the respondents because it required the action and discretion of third persons an able and willing foreign financial institution to provide the needed funds, and the DBP Board of Governors to guarantee the loan. Such third persons could not be legally compelled to act in a manner favorable to IHC. There is no question that when the fulfillment of a condition is dependent partly on the will of one of the contracting parties,[44] or of the obligor, and partly on chance, hazard or the will of a third person, the obligation is mixed.[45] The existing rule in a mixed conditional obligation is that when the condition was not fulfilled but the obligor did all in his power to comply with the obligation, the condition should be deemed satisfied.[46] | |||||
|
2006-06-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In the more recent case of Naga Telephone Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[44] the Court made the following declaration: Article 1144 of the New Civil Code provides, inter alia, that an action upon a written contract must be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues. Clearly, the ten (10) years period is to be reckoned from the time the right of action accrues which is not necessarily the date of execution of the contract. As correctly ruled by respondent court, private respondent's right of action arose "sometime during the latter part of 1982 or in 1983 when according to Atty. Luis General, Jr. x x x, he was asked by (private respondent's) Board of Directors to study said contract as it already appeared disadvantageous to (private respondent) (p. 31, tsn, May 8, 1989). Private respondent's cause of action to ask for reformation of said contract should thus be considered to have arisen only in 1982 or 1983, and from 1982 to January 2, 1989 when the complaint in this case was filed, ten (10) years had not yet elapsed.[45] This ruling was reiterated in Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. John Bordman Ltd. of Iloilo, Inc., [46] where the Court declared that the cause of action of respondent therein arose upon its discovery of the short deliveries with certainty, since prior thereto, it had no indication that it was not getting what it was paying for. The Court declared that before then, there was yet no issue to speak of, and as such, respondent could not have brought an action against petitioner. It was stressed that "it was only after the discovery of the short deliveries that respondent got into position to bring an action for specific performance." Thus, the Court declared that the action was brought within the prescriptive period.[47] | |||||