Hermosa v.

Longora
No. L-5267. October 27, 1953.
Case Digest.

I. FACTS

Sometime 1945, Fernando Hermosa, Sr. (FHS) died leaving an intestate estate. Epifanio
M. Longara (EML) recovered several amounts from the estate, including:

a. P2,341.41 – credit advances from 1932 – 1944;

b. P12,924.12 made to FHS’ son;
c. P3,772 made to his grandson.

The wife as administratix challenges the validity of said claims.

EML showed evidence that the advances were made upon FHS’ instance "on condition
that their payment should be made by Fernando Hermosa, Sr. as soon as he receive
funds derived from the sale of his property in Spain."

The subject property was sold and paid for on November, 1947. The claim was filed on
October 2, 1948.

The wife claims that the obligation was subject to a condition dependent upon the
exclusive will of the debtor. Thus null and void, citing the court’s ruling in Osmena v.
Rama.

II. ISSUE
1. Was FHS’ obligation subject to a condition exclusively dependent upon his own will?
2. Were the claims valid?
3. Had the obligation already prescribed?
4. Were the amounts extended to the grandson allowable claims against the estate?

III. HELD
1. No. The condition was not purely protestative at FHS’ instance.
2. Yes. The claims were valid.
3. No. The obligations has not yet prescribed.
4. No. They were not allowable claims.

IV. RATIONALE
1. The subject condition is mixed – dependent upon FHS will, and upon chance, i.e.
the presence of a ready, able and willing buyer for the purchase of the property
under the conditions provided.
2. There is no evidence to show that the claim was a product of collusion between the
administratrix and the claimant.
a. FHS kept receipts of the loan showing intent to pay the same.
b. Also supports the argument is the close relationship between FHS and EML.
3. The obligation to pay became due and demandable only when the house was sold
the proceeds thereon received. The action to recover the same only accrued from
such time as well.
4. There is no proof of authorization by FHS to furnish necessaries for his grandson
and even if there is such authorization, it should not have been continued after FHS’
death because: (a) obligation to furnish support is personal and extinguished upon
death of the person obliged to give support; (b) upon death of principal, the agent’s
authority is deemed terminated.