OSMEA VS. RAMA JOHNSON, September 9, 1909 NATURE APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu.

FACTS -15 Nov 1890: Doa Rama executed and delivered to Victoriano Osmea a contract (EXHIBIT A) which stated that she received P200 in cash from Don Osmea which she would pay in sugar in January/February the next year at the price on the day of delivering the sugar into the Dons warehouses + Interest w/ rate of half a cuartillo per month on each peso from Nov 15 to the day of the settlement; if ever the Doa could not pay in full, a balance shall be struck, showing the amount outstanding at the end of each June, including interest, and outstanding balance of the respondent would be considered as capital which the respondent would pay in sugar. The respondent also promised that she would sell to Don Osmea all her sugar that would be harvested, and as security, she pledged all her present and future property, and as a special security, she would give her house in Pagina. The contract was signed by 2 witnesses. -27 Oct. 1891: Defendant asked a further loan from the Don of P70, P50 of which would be loaned to Don Peares, and the P70 would be paid in sugar. -Some time after the execution and delivery of the above contracts, Don Osmea died. In the settlement and division of the property of his estate the above contracts became the property of one of his hieirs, Agustina Rafols. Later(no date given) the said Agustina Rafols ceded to the present plaintiff all of her right and interest in said contracts.

-( my copy is missing some paragraphs, cant find a copy in the internet so just look at your copies for the periods between the death of Don Osmea and March 15) -15 March 1902: Doa Rama recognized her obligations in the said contract with Don Osmea, stating in the contract she executed (EXHIBIT C) that if her house in Pagina would be sold she would use the money to pay for her debts. -26 June 1906: Doa Tomasa did not pay the amount due so the plaintiff commenced this action in CFI Cebu. CFI deci judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P200 with interest at the rate of 18 3/4 per cent per annum, from the 15th day of November, 1890, and for the sum of P20, with interest at the rate of 181 per cent per annum, from the 27th day of October, 1891, until the said sums were paid. Plaintiffs Claim the execution and delivery of the above contracts, the demand for payment, and the failure to pay on the part of the defendant, and the prayer for a judgment for the amount due on the said contracts. (own testimony I dont know if Agustina is a guy my copy said the plaintiff himself) Defendants defense general denial and setting up the special defense of prescription. (no evidence presented) ISSUE WON the proof presented during the trial in CFI is sufficient for the lower court to recognize the debt of Doa Rama, provided that she imposed the condition that she would pay her debts upon selling her house? HELD YES, the proof presented is sufficient. Ratio A condition imposed upon a contract by the promisor, the performance

of which depends upon his exclusive will, is void, in accordance with the provisions of article 1115 of the Civil Code. Reasoning It was suggested during the discussion of the case in this court that, in the acknowledgment of the indebtedness made by the defendant, she imposed the condition that she would pay the obligation if she sold her house. If that statement found in her acknowledgment of the indebtedness should be regarded as a condition, it was a condition which depended upon her exclusive will, and is, therefore, void. (Art. 1115, Civil Code.) The acknowledgment, therefore, was an absolute acknowledgment of the obligation and was sufficient to prevent the statute of limitation from barring the action upon the original contract. Dispositive We are satisfied, from all of the evidence adduced during the trial, that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed. So ordered.