L-12181 Ildefonso Vs Sibal
L-12181 Ildefonso Vs Sibal
Sibal
G.R. No. L-12181 | September 30, 1959
Facts:
Issues:
● Did Sibal breach the compromise agreement by failing to fulfill his obligation to involve
Ildefonso in real estate transactions within the two-year period?
● Is Sibal liable to pay the P2,000 penalty to Ildefonso under the terms of the compromise
agreement?
Rulings:
● The Court ruled that Sibal did not breach the compromise agreement by failing to
engage Ildefonso in real estate transactions within the two-year period. The agreement
only required Sibal to "course through" Ildefonso any real estate transactions he
intended to conduct. Sibal did involve Ildefonso, but due to circumstances beyond his
control, the transactions did not materialize. The Court found that Sibal's principal
obligation was to involve Ildefonso as his realtor during the two-year period, not
necessarily to purchase or sell real estate.
● The Court further ruled that Sibal was not liable to pay the P2,000 penalty because he
did fulfill his obligation by involving Ildefonso in real estate transactions, even though
those transactions did not come to fruition. The Court found that the ambiguous
language of the agreement, coupled with the explanatory clause, created uncertainty.
However, any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the party who did not cause the
ambiguity, which in this case was Sibal. Since Sibal engaged Ildefonso as required by
the agreement, he was not liable for the penalty.
Conclusion:
● The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, which dismissed Ildefonso's complaint
and absolved Sibal from the penalty stipulated in the compromise agreement. The Court
found that Sibal had fulfilled his obligation by involving Ildefonso in real estate
transactions, even though those transactions did not come to fruition due to
circumstances beyond his control. The Court also emphasized the need to interpret
ambiguous contract clauses in favor of the party who did not cause the ambiguity.