Florention vs.
Encarnacion
G.R. No. L-27696.
September 30, 1977
Relevant Provision:
Art. 1311 xxxx
If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfillment
provided he communicated his acceptance to the obligor before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit
or interest of a person is not sufficient. The contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately
conferred a favor upon a third person. (1257a) (This is pour autrui)
FACTS: Petitioners filed an application for the registration under Act 496 of a parcel of agricultural land
in Ilocos Sur. That said applicants had acquired the aforesaid land thru and by inheritance from their
predecessors in interest, their aunt, Doña Encarnacion Florentino.
After due notice and publication, the Court set the application for hearing. Only the Director of Lands
filed an opposition but was later withdrawn so an order of general default was issued. Upon application of
the applicants, the Clerk of Court was commissioned and authorized to receive the evidence of the
applicants and ordered to submit the same for the Court's proper resolution.
Exhibit O-1 embodied in the deed of extrajudicial partition, which states that with respect to the land
situated in Barrio Lubong, Dacquel, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, the fruits thereof shall serve to defray the
religious expenses, was the source of contention in this case (Spanish text).
Florentino wanted to include Exhibit O-1 on the title but the Encarnacions opposed and subsequently
withdrawn their application on their shares, which was opposed by the former.
The Court after hearing the motion for withdrawal and the opposition issued an order and for the purpose
of ascertaining and implifying that the products of the land made subject matter of this land registration
case had been used in answering for the payment of expenses for the religious functions specified in the
Deed of Extrajudicial Partition which was no registered in the office of the Register of Deeds from time
immemorial; and that the applicants knew of this arrangement and the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition of
August 24, 1947, was not signed by Angel Encarnacion or Salvador Encarnacion, Jr.
Hence, this petition.
Issue: WON the stipulation embodied in Exhibit O on religious expenses is just an arrangement
stipulation, or grant revocable at the unilateral option of the co-owners.
HELD: NO.
The stipulation (Exhibit O-1) is part of an extrajudicial partition (Exh. O) duly agreed and signed by the
parties, hence the same must bind the contracting parties thereto and its validity or compliance cannot be
left to the will of one of them
The said stipulation is a stipulation pour autrui.
A stipulation pour autrui is a stipulation in favor of a third person conferring a clear and deliberate favor
upon him, and which stipulation is merely a part of a contract entered into by the parties, neither of whom
acted as agent of the third person, and such third person may demand its fulfillment provided that he
communicates his acceptance to the obligor before it is revoked.
Requisites of A Valid Pour Autrui: (1) that the stipulation in favor of a third person should be a part, not
the whole, of the contract, (2) that the favorable stipulation should not be conditioned or compensated by
any kind of obligation whatever; and (3) neither of the contracting parties bears the legal representation or
authorization of third party.
What Constitute a Valid stipulation pour autrui: it must be the purpose and intent of the stipulating
parties to benefit the third person, and it is not sufficient that the third person may be incidentally
benefited by the stipulation. The intention of the parties may be disclosed by their contract. It matters not
whether the stipulation is in the nature of a gift or whether there is an obligation owing from the promise
to the third person. That no such obligation exists may in some degree assist in determining whether the
parties intended to benefit a third person.
The evidence on record shows that the true intent of the parties is to confer a direct and material
benefit upon the Church.
While a stipulation in favor of a third person has no binding effect in itself before its acceptance by the
party favored, the law does not provide when the third person must make his acceptance. As a rule, there
is no time limit; such third person has all the time until the stipulation is revoked. Here, We find that the
Church accepted (implicitly) the stipulation in its favor before it is sought to be revoked by some of
the co-owners.
Manifestation of implied acceptance: The enjoyment of benefits flowing therefrom for almost
seventeen years without question from any quarters can only be construed as an implied acceptance by
the Church of the stipulation p o u r a u t r ui before its revocation
-RED POGI-
