FRANCISCO OSORIO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ESTEBAN SALUTILLO AND SANTAS DE SALUTILLO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal, upon a question of law, taken by the defendants
from a Judgment rendered by the Court of First,Instance of Davao, in
favor of the plaintiff.

According to Exhibit A, plaintiff on May 27, 1947, to from the
defendants a loan of P6,000 payable without interest, on May 27, 1952.
Payment was guaranteed by a mortgage on real property. The contract
contained the following stipulation:

“The conditions of this mortgage are as follows; to wit:

*           *           *           *           *           *           *

“The other condition is such that due to
the fact that I am so busy and preoccupied with the cultivation of
another properties during the term or existence of this mortgage the
mortgagee, Mr. Esteban Salutillo shall take possession of the two
parcels herein mortgaged, and to take charge of the cleaning of the
land, and the harvesting on the nuts from the coconut trees planted
thereon and the making of coprax. And for his services In managing the
land during the existence of the mortgage, we do hereby agree that
after deducting all the expenses In the clearing, harvesting and making
of coprax which will all be charged to my account (mortgagor) Seventy
per cent of the net proceeds from the sale of the coprax shall be the
share of the mortgagee (Esteban Salutlllo), while the remainder of
Thirty per cent shall be my share.” (Italics ours.)

On or before March 31, 1948, plaintiff offered to pay the loan, but
upon defendants’ refusal to accept payment, a complaint was filed and
the sum of P6,500 was consigned in court. The only question is whether
or not, under the terms of the contract, the loan may be paid on or
before March 31, 1948. The court rendered Judgment holding the contract
to be unilateral, and that the period therein fixed for payment of the
loan is for the benefit of the debtor, who, for that reason, may make
payment before May 27, 1952.

This judgment is wrong. The contract of loan expressly stipulates
that payment shall be made on May 27, 1952. Article 1127 of the Civil
Code provides that—”Whenever a term is fixed in obligations it is
presumed as established for the benefit of the creditor and the debtor,
unless from their tenor or some other circumstances, it should appear
that it has been established for the benefit of one or the other.”
According to this provision, the term is presumed to be for the benefit
of both debtor and creditor, and, therefore, debtor cannot make payment
before the time stipulated, without the consent of the creditor. The
presumption, of course, is rebuttable.

It is maintained that since the loan is payable without interest,
payment before the time stipulated would not harm the creditor.
However, one of the conditions stipulated for the loan is, as above
stated, that during the term or existence of the mortgage, the creditor
shall have possession of the two parcels of land mortgaged,and will
clean them, taking charge of the harvesting of the nuts from the
coconut trees, and of the making of the copra, and that for his
services, he will be given 70 per cent of the net proceeds of the sale
of the copra. Plaintiff himself alleges, in paragraph 6 of his
complaint, that the compensation thus stipulated in behalf of the
creditor, takes the place of the Interest of the loan. And, according
to the deed Exhibit A, this compensation is one of the conditions
stipulated for the loan. The contract, therefore, is bilateral and,
without the consent of the creditor, payment cannot be made before May
27, 1952.

Judgment is reversed, and defendants-appellants are hereby absolved, with costs against appellee.

Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.