Hermosa v.

Longara
Petitioner: Luz Hermosa and Fernando Hermosa, Jr.
Respondent: Epifanio Longara
Topic: Types of condition as to caused mixed
Facts:

Epifanio M. Longara presented claims against the intestate estate of Fernando

Hermosa, Sr.
These claims are of three kinds: credit advances made to intestate from 1932 to 1944,
made to his son Francisco Hermosa and his grandson Fernando Hermosa, Jr. from 1945
to 1947.
Intestate had asked for the credit advances for himself and for the members of his family
"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."
CA held that payment of the advances did not become due until the administratrix sold
the property in November 1947, and the same was paid subsequently.
Claim was filed on October 2, 1948.

Issues:
1. WoN the obligation was subject to a condition exclusively dependent upon the will of the
debtor and therefore null and void
NO
The condition does not depend exclusively upon the will of the debtor, but also upon
other circumstances beyond his power or control.
The condition implies that the intestate had already decided to sell his house, or at least
that he had made his creditors believe that he had done so. All that was needed to make
his obligation demandable is that the sale be consummated and the price thereof
remitted to the islands.
The will to sell on the part of the intestate was present in fact, or presumed legally to
exist, although the price and other conditions thereof were still within his discretion and
final approval.
Other conditions needed to concur to effect the sale: presence of a buyer willing to
purchase the property
2. WoN the sale is valid even though not effected in the lifetime of the debtor, but after his
death and by his administrator
YES
There was no evidence to show that the claim was the product of a collusion/connivance
between the administratrix and the claimant.
The promise made by the intestate to pay for credit advances can be implied from the
facts that receipts had been preserved.
Regularity of advances and close relationship also support this conclusion.
3. WoN the action to recover advances has prescribed
NO
Action to recover accrued only on the date the money became available.

4. WoN the claims furnished to intestates grandson should be allowed

NO
The obligation to furnish support is personal and extinguished upon the death of the
person obliged.
Upon the death of a principal, his agents authority/authorization is deemed terminated.