G.R. No. L-22404, 31 May 1971


The deed of absolute sale as the binding contract between appellant and appellee conveyed the two storey house in favor of the appellee. The appellee is entrusted of the properties of the appellant’s illegitimate son. The appellee mortgaged the said property to Republic Savings Bank for the payment of the appellee’s loan and thereafter the appellee offered them for sale. The appellant then prayed for the issuance of a writ of execution restraining the appellee and her agents to further alienate or disposed of the said property. The appellant wanted to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of his son who is the beneficiary.


Whether or not the contract between appellant and appellee was a contract pour autrui.


Yes. It appears then that, upon the facts alleged by appellant, the contract between him and appellee was a contract pour autrui, although couched in the form of a deed of absolute sale, and that appellant’s action was, in effect, one for specific performance. That one of the parties to a contract is entitled to bring an action for its enforcement or to prevent its breach is too clear to need any extensive discussion. Upon the other hand, that the contract involved contained a stipulation pour autrui amplifies this settled rule only in the sense that the third person for whose benefit the contract was entered into may also demand its fulfillment provided he had communicated his acceptance thereof to the obligor before the stipulation in his favor is revoked.

It appears that the amended complaint submitted by appellant to the lower court impleaded the beneficiary under the contract as a party co-plaintiff, it seems clear that the three parties concerned therewith would, as a result, be before the court and the latter’s adjudication would be complete and binding upon them.

 * Case digest by Lea Caipang, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018