G.R. No. L-2724
August 24, 1950
JOSE DE LEON, CECILIO DE LEON, in thi! in"i#i"u$% &$'$&it(, $n" JOSE DE LEON $n" CECILIO DE LEON , $s $")inist!$to!s o* th intst$t st$t o* +%i " Lon, petitioner, Lon, petitioner, vs. ASNCION SORIANO, respondent. SORIANO, respondent. FACTS: Jose de Leon, Cecilio de Leon and Albina de Leon, were natural children of Felix de Leon, deceased, while Asuncion Soriano, is his widow. In the adinistration and settleent of the decedent!s estate, the said widow, on the one hand, and the natural children, reached an a"reeent, approved b # the probate court, whereb# the natural children obli"ated theselves to deliver cavanes of rice at the end of each a"ricultural #ear. The defendants failed to deliver exact cavanes to the plaintiff due to $the %u& troubles in Central Lu'on which rendered ipossible full copliance copliance with the ters of the a"reeent($ and it was contended that $inasuch as the obli"ations of the defendants to deliver the full aount of the pala# is dependin" upon the produce as this is in the nature of an annuit#, . . . the obli"ations of the defendants have been full# fulfilled b# deliverin" in "ood faith all that could be possible under the circustances.$ The court "ave )ud"ent for the plaintiff and was affired b# the appellate court. *+LI-: Article /0 /0 of the Civil Code, provide that $An# $An# obli"ation which which consists in the deliver# of a deterinate deterinate thin" shall be extin"uished extin"uished if such thin" should be lost or destro#ed without fault on the part of the debtor and before he is in default. Inversel#, the obli"ation is not extin"uished extin"uished if the thin" that perishes is indeterinate. 1xcept as to 2ualit# and 2uantit#, the first of which is itself "eneric, the contract sets no bounds or liits to the pala# to be paid, nor was there even an# stipulation that the cereal was to be the produce of an# particular land. An# pala# of the 2ualit# stipulated re"ardless of ori"in on however ac2uired 3lawfull#4 would be obli"ator# on the part of the obli"ee to receive and would dischar"e the obli"ation. It sees therefore plain that the alle"ed failure of crops throu"h alle"ed fortuitous cause did not excuse perforance. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affired with costs a"ainst the petitioners and appellants.
