Oblicon Midterms Transcript

Does the law require that civil obligation have a pecuniary value or be capable of pecuniary
estimation?
Yes. Otherwise such an obligation will be rendered nugatory or illusory.
In case of failure to fulfil those civil obligations, the debtor is liable to pay damages. It is by expressed
provision of law that pecuniary value of an obligation would render the debtor liable for damages in case of
breach; and the pecuniary value will be the measure of the damages that may be awarded by the courts in Art
1170
The prestation is the object of the obligation.
Jan 1 2017, A bound himself to give B a specific car before Jan 1 2018.
A – debtor, passive subject
B – creditor, active subject
Why is the creditor considered an active subject?
He has the power to demand the performance of the obligation. He is the one who puts the obligation
into motion, pending which the obligation was dormant as far as the parties are concerned.
What is the object of A’s obligation?
Obligation to give B a specific car*
There are three prestations: to give, to do, not to do,
What is the difference between the object of the obligation and the object of the prestation?
What are the sources of rights?
Law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, quasi-delict
Why is there an active subject?
Because in each and every obligation, there is a concomitant or corresponding right to demand the
performance thereof; for if there be no active subject, there can be no obligation at all.
What is meant by law?

Are obligations arising from law presumed?
No. Art. 1155
Give an example of an obligation arising from law.
Taxes – duty of each and possessor to pay tax.
If there is Employer-employee relationship, it presupposes that there is an employment contract. Obligation

here does not arise from law.
Why are obligations arising from law not presumed?
They serve as a derogation of our right. A portion of what we earn will be given to the gov’t.
How should the law be construed?
Strictly against the imposing authority, liberally in favour of the person who shoulders the burden.
TAX EXEMPTION – strictly construed against the taxpayer claiming exemption, and liberally in favour
of the taxing authority
For a law to give rise to an obligation is it necessary that the same be valid?
Must it conform to the Constitution?
If it does not, it is invalid. It is as if no law has been constructed at all.
What is a contract?
A contract is the meeting of the minds between two parties, as to the consideration of the price and the
subject matter which constitutes the contract.
Why is it that the contract that gives rise to the obligation is the law between the contracting parties?
A offered for sale a particular land to B for P5M. B went to A and conveyed to him his acceptance of A’s offer.
There is now a meeting of the mind as to the price, and object. Suppose later on A and B executed a deed of
contract of sale with A binding himself to deliver to him on Jan 5, 2017 and B to pay the price upon perfection
of contract. The entire contract is the law between A and B. Their contractual relationship must be primarily
governed by the stipulations of the contract, suppletorily by the provisions on sale, and obligations and
contracts.
The relationship between an employer and employee arises from contract. In case of insufficiency of the labor
contract especially as to labor standards, the labor code will apply suppletorily.
No law shall be passed in violation of the obligations and contracts,
But except where the state exercise power of eminent domain.
The contract primarily governs the relationship between parties. Depending on the nature of the contract.
Why is it that the obligations arising from contracts have the force and effect of law?
Art 1306. Parties may stipulate as they may deem necessary or convenient as long as they are not
contrary to law, good morals, and the same must be complied.
Once a contract has been entered, neither may just walk away from the contract by saying that he has
already changed his mind; to maintain the sanctity or sacredness of a contractual relationship. Why? Pag
kontrata yan, may consent, it must have been voluntarily, and intelligently entered into.
Is it necessary that the contract be valid?
What if one is a minor or incapacitated?
In voidable marriages, there is an invalid contract but it is valid until it is annulled. But until it is annulled, the
contract remains the law between them. What if the contract is rescissible? It may be set aside by way of
rescission (1381). It may be set aside but pending the rescission, it is still the law between them; valid until
rescinded.
When it comes to the validity of performance, the law expressly provides that contract must bind both such that
performance or validity cannot be left to the will of one. (Mutuality of contracts)
If B demands from A the performance of his obligation to deliver the land to B, and A does not comply, B may
rescind (under 1191, not 1380) because of breach.
Since consent is needed for the contract, dissent must also be mutual. The contract cannot be left to depend
upon the sole will of just one of the contracting parties. This is why we need to make burdensome every
breach.
What is a quasi-contract?
A lawful unilateral, ad voluntary act that gives rise to a juridical relation to the extent that no one will be
unjustly enriched at the expense of another. Two Forms: Negotiorum Gestio. Solutio Indebiti.
3 essential requisites: 1) lawful, 2) voluntary, otherwise obligation will arise from negligence, 3) unilateral,
because if it is reciprocal or bilateral, the obligation arises from a contract.
Only in case of abandonment or neglect may there be negotiorum gestio . Why?
By then, the person exercising management or authority over that property or business which was not
neglected or abandmoment will be viewed as an intXXXX usurping aland. if what is involved is a real property,
a XXX ( divoricla ) Possessor
Give an example.
Two parcels of land adjoining. B is abroad. a week ago A heard from PAGASA that there will be a typhoon that
will affect their area. He constructed a retaining wall to preserve both properties from erosion, etc. A spent
P500K for it. It was without the knowledge and consent of B, neither did B authorize it. Can A recover from B?
Yes. Otherwise, B will be unjustly enriched at the expense of A.
In Solutio Indebiti, what if there was negligence?
A paid B P500k this morning despite the fact that B is not a creditor of B. Can A recover? YES. Solutio Indebiti.
B is not entitled to anything as far as A is concerned. Otherwise, B will be unjustly enriched at the expense of
A.
What are crime, offense, and felony?
Why may civil obligation arise from delict?
Are all criminally liable also civilly liable? Art 100, RPC. But this is not a absolute. A person may be indicted but
he is not held civilly laible: criminal contempt of court, rebellion, treason; If there is a breach/violation, what will
be the basis for civil liability? If the crime is homicide, there is an offended party.
May there be an instance where a person is not criminally liable for his acts but he is civilly liable?
Yes. Art 12, RPC—Exempting Circumstance.
A, an elementary student, killed his classmate B. B’s parents suffered moral damages on account of B’s death.
A is a donee of parcel of land donated to him by his grandfather. A is not criminally liable but he is civilly liable
to the extent of his properties not exempted from execution. In case of insufficiency thereof, the school and the
parents of A may also be civilly liable.
May the civil obligation of a person criminally and civilly liable be extinguished by the complete service
of the sentence? What if he is absolutely pardoned? What is the effect of pardon?
Pardon does not extinguish the liability because it only extinguishes the liability as far as the State and
the people are concerned. The state cannot waive the civil liability owing to a private offended party. Only the
offended party can do that by way of condonation; the president cannot do that.
Fines v. civil liability
Art 6, NCC - Waiver is valid so long as it is not contrary to law. In a waiver—only the party who possesses that
right may waive such right. The president or the Republic has nothing to do with that right.
What is a quasi-delict?
May a civil obligation arise from quasi delict even when there is a pre-existing contract?
Yes.
What is the difference between civil obligation arising from quasi-delict, and from contract?
A and b contracted P5M DI KO NA MARINIG. There are two obligations, two creditors and debtors. A is a
debtor insofar as his obligation to deliver is concerned. B is a creditor insofar as the obligation to pay price is
concerned. There are two correlative obligations. There are civil obligations that of A and B in Quasi Delict.
Define fault or negligence.
1173, culpa contractual, not quasi-delict or culpa aquilianna.
Quasi-delict is a substantive and independent source of obligation.
There is a two-way street. Going one side is a bus owned and operated by A company and driven by B. On the
opposite side is a bus driven by C and owned and operated by D company. Both are common carriers.
Suppose P boarded the bus of A company.
E and D are both employees. A and B companies are employers. Both bound to pay taxes - Obligation arising
from law
When P boarded A’s bus – Contract of common carriage between P and A company (not B).
Supposed A was negligent in the operation. The buses collided. As a result, P sustained injuries.
X, a good person, helped P. X brought P to the hospital. – Contract of service between the patient and doctors
for P500k
Is X entitled to recover from P?
P was unable to report to work for 30 days. He suffered moral damages, all amounting to P5M
What will P do to recover the damages?
(If you were counsel for P) Go against A company because of CULPA CONTRACTUAL (easier). All P has to
do is 1) prove contractual relationship by presenting the ticket, 2) Prove that he did not reach his destination at
the appointed time and place on account of the negligence, that A did not exercise due diligence
Burden of proof now shifts to A—that A company has exercised extraordinary diligence, and despite that, the
accident nevertheless occurred on account of B’s negligence.
This is subject to the rules against double recovery (2177)
P may opt to recover from A, B, C, D on account of QUASI DELICT. For, negligence giving rise to an obligation
is substantive and independent. In Culpa Contractual, the negligence of X and XX(Di ko marinig) control the
suborgration of D will only be a mere incident. Whereas if P opted to recover on account of quasi-delict
involving all parties, he must prove that he sustained injuries on account of all the parties’ negligence. Once he
proves negligence, the obligation of all will be solidary. Even if there are four debtors in this case, P may
proceed against any of them. The obligation is divided into as many parts as there are creditors and debtors.
In quasi-delict, the nature of the obligation is solidary.
If P opts against A, A cannot excuse himself from liability except by proving that he has exercised extraordinary
diligence in the supervision and selection of his employees, that despite that, the incident occurred, as long as
he can prove that B for his negligence, was the proximate and only cause of the injuries suffered by P.
What does an obligation to give consist in?
Payment of money, delivery of a thing,
What does an obligation to do consist in?
Performing services required
What does an obligation not to do consist in?
Refraining from performing an act forbidden under the obligation
In an obligation to give, what are the obligations of the obligor? What are the concomitant obligations?
When is a thing generic or determinate?

Ex: Rice, animal,
A bound himself to give a horse to B on Jan 31, 2017. December 31, 2017, B demanded from A his obligation.
While A was on his way to deliver the horse to B, the horse died by reason of A’s fault or negligence. Is A
liable for negligence?
No. A determinate thing never perishes. Genus nunquam perit. He cans still perform his obligation by
giving another horse in lieu of the dead one. Debtor is not required to exercise the diligence of a good father of
a family for so long as he can comply with his obligation.
A bound himself to deliver to B a particular car on Dec 31, 2017. Dec 31, 2017, B demanded for the delivery of
the car. But when it was being delivered, it was destroyed through A’s fault. Is he liable?
Art 1173 in relation to 1163.
1163 applies only to obligations to give a determinate of specific thing, not to obligations to give indeterminate
objects. Reason? Even if the thing is lost, he would not be liable for damages X X X DI KO MARINIG
This is why we need to distinguish the objects of the prestation.
Define diligence of a good father of a family
It is defined by the law in the negative. 1173
How does the law define negligence?
What are the other obligations of a debtor in an obligation to give?
Jan 1 2017, A owner of stable with 10 race horses, bound himself to give B one race horse. On December 31,
2017, A while on his way to deliver a race horse, the horse he was about to deliver gave birth to a foal.
Immediately upon giving birth, the horse and the foal were returned to the stable. A tendered the delivery of
another race horse to B. Is B entitled to the horse that gave birth to the foal, and the foal?
Rights under art 1164 –1) right to demand the fruits as well as the thing (personal right – power to demand
performance of the obligation and the fruits), 2) once delivery is made, it becomes a real right—right
enforceable against the entire universe. Once delivery is made, the creditor possesses the same to the
exclusion of everybody.
No. 1164(1) applies only to determinate of specific thing. The object of the prestation here is a generic
object. He can give any of the horses in his stable.
Jan 1, 2017 A bound himself to deliver to B a horse named Casino on Dec 31 2017. June 1, 2017, Casino
gave birth to a foal. Dec 31 2017, B demanded from A. A delivered only Casino, retaining for himself the
possession of the foal. Is B entitled to the foal as well?
***Sa BAR, talk to the examiner as though he is a layman. Anong Sinasabi ng batas?
No, B is not entitled to the foal. 1164. The horse produced fruits before the obligation to deliver Casino
matured. The birth of the foal preceded the maturity of the obligation.
On Jan 1 2017, A bound himself to give to B a particular horse on June 1 2017. June 1, 2017, Bdid not
demand from A. On August 1, 2017, while the horse was still in its stable, it gave birth to a foal. Dec 1, 2017, B
demanded. When did A’s obligation arise?
June 1, 2017. The birth followed the maturity of the obligation.
When does the obligation to give a determinate thing arise?
If not subject to a suspensive condition or period, it is demandable at once. Then the obligation to give
a determinate thing arises from the very moment of the establishment of the obligation.
The rule is different in Sales.1537 in relation to 1164
Jan 1 2017, A offered to sell to B his horse named Marina for P500k. B bound himself to pay the price
immediately upon the perfection of the contract, and A to deliver to B on Dec 31, 2017. July 1, 2017, the horse
gave birth. Obligations arose only on December 31, 2017 or after the birth of the foal. Can B the buyer
demand from A the delivery of a horse and the foal?
Yes. 1537(2) Fruits accruing upon perfection (3 Kinds of Fruits: Natural, Industrial, Civil)
Jan 19
The thing consist of the object classified in to two: Generic and Specific
When is a thing generic?
Classified by class or genus
When is the things specific?
Particularly distributed of the same class
In an obligation to give a generic thing, what is the obligation of the debtor? To perform the specific
performance.
Reason: delivering a thing consist more than superior or inferior quality in generic things and damages in case
of breach
If A breached his obligation by the total destruction of the car, is he at fault?
*Art 1117, four modes to breaching or violate civil obligation delay, negligence, fraud, contravention of tenor of
the obligation
Is A guilty under this case?
Art 1163, obligations to give application to specific particular things only.
A generic thing never perishes.
Because A obliged himself to deliver a car, which was destroyed through his fault or negligence.
1163, talks about proper diligence of diligence of a father
What is meant by proper diligence? Performance of the obligation.
1173, negligence? Omission of that diligence required by the nature of the obligation in response with the
circumstances of the person, time and place.
The exact opposite of negligence.
How do you define proper diligence of a father of a family? Observance of that diligence required by the nature
of the obligation in response to person, time and place.
A has 10 race horses in his stable.

Jan 1 2017, A bound himself to deliver himself to to B one of his race horses from his stable on December 31
2017.
On Dec 25, while A is on his way to comply with his obligation, the horse suddenly died due to A’s negligence.
Is A at fault due to negligence under article 1163, 1170? Is he liable for damages?
Not liable.
What is the nature of object of obligation in an obligation to give? To give
What is the obligation of A to give? To give one of his horses. The object or prestation or obligation is a limited
generic object. A can still deliver or perform his obligation by delivering one of the 9 horses in his stable.
***
In obligation to give a generic thing
Jan 1 2017 A bound himself to deliver to B 100 sacks of jasmine rice on Dec 31 2017. The day arrived and B
demanded to A the performance of his obligation but A failed to deliver 100 sacks of rice
What are the remedies available to B? legal basis
Can B go to court to compel A to deliver the things with damages?
Jan 1 2017 A bound himself to deliver a specific car. Nothing more can be more specific than that. On Dec 31
2017, B demanded the performance of A’s obligation. A refuse to deliver. Can B go to court to compel A to
deliver the car to him? Yes. The object if the obligation
In an obligation to give a specific thing, the person can demand a specific performance, to deliver a specific
thing with damages.
In an obligation to give determinate thing, he can ask the performance of the obligation at the expense of the
debtor.
A bound himself to give B a particular carabao on Jan 1 2017 to B on dec 31 2017. Mar 1, 2017, the carabao
Digong gave birth to a calf Mocha Uson
Jan 5 2018, the carabao gave birth to another calf H. Roque.
B demanded from A the performance of the obligation to give.
How should A comply with his obligation?
Is B entitled to both calves?
*A right is imposable to a specific object.

When you say personal right, there is a particular subject.
Right to dispose,
Right to fruits,
Right to possess.
Jan 1 2017 A bound himself to deliver to B a carabao from A’s farm on Dec 31, 2017. The day arrived, during
the travel to deliver the carabao, it gave birth. And so he took his car back to the farm and delivered another
carabao from his farm.
Can B compelled A to deliver the first carabao? No, because there is still no delivery yet. 1164.
The obligation to give, the obligation arises from the very moment that the obligation has been made
If there is suspensive condition, the obligation arises from the moment the suspensive condition is fulfilled.
In suspensive period, the obligation arises upon the arrival of the time fixed by law or the decision of the court.
Jan 1 2017, A bound himself to B a particular carabao, Digong on Dec 31, 2017. However, on Nov 1 2017, X
stole the carabao from A. Can B compel X to deliver the carabao?
Suppose tonight, Jan 19, 2018, B demanded the carabao to be delivered to him from X?
No No No, B did not lost anything, not yet obtained legal possession or ownership of the carabao as there is no
delivery yet. You cannot recover what is lost. The real right is with A, the owner of the carabao whether or not it
is incurred in delay.
What is meant by accession? Accessory
A has a parcel of land surrounded by a body of water, on Jan 1, 2005, A offered to sale his land to B for P5M.
Under the contract B bound himself to pay and A to deliver on Dec 31, 2017. Naturally, the land had some
minerals on the sides of the land. The day arrived, A upon demand deliver the land but not the minerals. Can B
be compelled by A to accept the land alone?
Can A retain for himself the minerals on the land?
Difference of fruits and accessions?
1166, not only the land but also the accessions and accessories of the land must be delivered.
Reason: accessories and accessions follow the principal. Unless, the parties agree that only the principal
object be delivered. Nothing illegal, immoral nor it is against public policy.
Kinds of fruits? Three kinds.
In an obligation to do,
A for 5M bound himself on jan 1 2017 to construct a house on the land to B, while B to deliver the money on
June 1 2017. It arrived, B arrived on the land, to his surprise no house was made. A has not yet started to
construct the house. B on Sep 1 2017 went to court, filed a complaint against A and asked the court to directly
compel A to construct the house.
If you are the judge, what will you do?
Can he ask the court to compel A to construct the house? What does the law provide?
The obligation is a juridical necessity. Because they need to go to court to ask specific performance or for
damages to compel A to construct the house.
1167. In an obligation to do, if a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his
cost. B has no right to compel A to construct the house. He can ask another C to construct the house in the
expense of A.
In an obligation to do, what can be poorly done be undone. Can be done at the expense of the debtor.
Reason: if you are the debtor, if it is given to the debtor, whether to perform or not, the creditor will be under
the debtor. Di pwedeng bayaran kita kung kailan ko gusto. It is not allowed by law.
In an obligation to do or not to do, the law respects the rights of the debtor, does that mean that it is within the
debtor to determine whether the performance be done or not?
In our first meeting, a specific obligation must have a pecuniary value. Because in case of breach, that value
will answer for damages 1170
Can B compel A to construct the house?

Reason: The constitution itself proscribe voluntary servitude. See Article 3, Bill of Rights, Section 18 of the
Constitution.
The construction of the house, whatever the cost be borne by the debtor.
Who are liable for damages? See 1170.
What is delay? Requisites of Delay? See 1169.
A bound himself to give B P5M on July 1 2017, the day came, B demand the obligation, still A have not yet
paid until now. Is he in delay?
Jan 1 2017, A bound himself to B to give P5M on July 1 2017, the day came, is A in delay? He is in delay but
not liable for damages as he is not yet in legal delay. He only incurs delay when there is a judicial or
extrajudicial demand from the creditor.
A bound himself to B to give P5M on July 1 2017. B demanded the payment of A on June 1, 2017. A refuse to
pay. Is A in delay?
No, the stipulation is to pay on July 1, the obligation is not yet demandable.
On Jan 1, 2017, A bound himself to B P5M. to be paid on july 1, 2017, B demanded from A on June 1 2017. A
refuse to pay, there was extrajudicial demand. Is A in delay? No, there must be first a valid demand. Here no
valid demand because at the time of the demand, the obligation is not yet due and demandable.
On jan 1, 2017, A bound himself to give B P5M on july 1, 2017. It arrived, B demanded from A to delivery a car
worth P5M, is A in delay? The object of the prestation demanded is different, A is not yet in delay.
On jan 1, 2017, A bound himself to deliver to B P5M on July 1 2017. The day arrived, B went to the house of A
to collect the money only to find out that A is not in his house. He saw C, A’s mother and demanded to her the
payment of the obligation. C refuse to pay. Is A in delay? There must be authorization from A for the prestation
to be demandable on a third person.
On Jan 1, 2017, A bound himself to pay P5m on July 1 2017. The day arrived, B called A reminding him of his
obligation to B. A did not pay. Is A in delay? No. reminder is not a demand.
In case of doubt, you serve a demand letter to the debtor. Because usually in a contract, the debtor is favored.
Can a debtor in an obligation not to do incur in delay? No.
When the law does not distinguish the law should not distinguish. Since 1169 does not cover obligations not to
do. Only obligations to deliver and to do. Also, physically impossible for obligations not to do to incur in delay.
In what instances is demand not necessary?

1169.
A bound himself to pay B the amount of P5M on Dec 31, 2017. B was not able to pay, is he in delay?
Under the internal revenue code, the paying of income taxes, if the taxpayer fails to pay due to the
government. The taxes will aaasdfghjkl
The demand is no longer necessary as it is expressly identified.
Not in delay as there was no demand from A was served.
On Jan 1 2017 A bound himself to pay P5M to B on Dec 31 2017. He executed a promissory note P5M plus
15% per annum interest, on the arrival of the day, B demanded from A the obligation. Is he in delay? The fact
that there is a promissory note, it does not mean that A is in delay. This are only used as evidence for the
obligation.
What if no demand was made and A was not able to pay, is he in delay?
On Jan 1, 2017, A borrowed from B P5M in excahgne amount to C, A promissory note plus 15% interest on
Dece 31, A was not able to pay B on the arrival of day.799 CB
What is rescission?
- Simply having the obligation cancelled on account of breach (by delay, fraud, negligence,
contravention)
Is it absolute? – NO. Injured party may choose fulfillment of the obligation
A and B entered into a contract of sale of a particular parcel of land for P5M with A bound to deliver the land to
B as to vest the ownership thereof. B to pay immediately upon the perfection of the contract on 1/1/17 and B to
pay the purchase price of P5M to A on 1/30/18 (reciprocal obligations). 1/30/18 arrived, A demanded from B
the payment of the price. B refused to pay. Can A have the contract of sale recinded?
UFC v. CA
UP v. Delos Angeles
Is the right to rescind under 1191 absolute?
1191 is founded on the breach of faith/obligation by one of the parties
1170 provides for the rescission of the obligation under 1191
the remedy of rescission is not absolute bec. UFC v. CA provides recission can only be had in case of
substantial breach, not slight or casual breach
- 1234, 1235: debtor may recover as if there is strict compliance with the obligation/ complete or irregular
compliance
Answer: although there was delay on the par tof B to pay, the delay in the payment of the price for only 20
days is not substantial as to warrant a rescission of the contract of sale
KAILANGAN SUBSTANTIAL ANG BREACH
Is the remedy of rescission judicial in character? YES. Legal basis. Art. 1191
Why is it judicial? What is the reason behind the law: Ours is a gov’t of laws and not of men
How did the Supreme Court differentiate the remedy of rescission under Art 1191 and rescission on rescissible
contracts under Arts. 1380-1389 inclusive
As to the grounds: breach of faith under 1170 (1191); economic prejudice (1380)
As to the party who may institute an action for recission: only the injured party (1191); even a party who is not
a party to the recip. obligation especially when the creditor can no longer recover…(RC)
Remedy: immediate, principal… (1191); recission is subsidiary(RC)
Prescription period: 1144 and 1145 applies (1191); 1389 (RC)
For the aggrieved party in a reciprocal obligation to avail himself the remedy of recission, is it necessary that
the right to recind be agreed upon? (1191)
Aggrieved party may choose recission or exact fulfillment w/ damages in either case
May there be an instance that recission may be exercised extrajudicially –YES. When it is agreed upon…
Is the extrajudicial remedy of recission absolute?
A and B agreed that for the consideration of 2M, A bound himself to deliver 1000G of mineral water per month
to B for a period of 3 years, starting 1/1/17. If and when one of the parties fails to comply with his undertaking,
the other party may treat the contract as cancelled
1/1/17 – A failed to deliver until 2/18. B treated the contract cancelled, and contracted to C the delviery of
1000G of H20 (the object is generic)
Is the contract already deemed as cancelled? NO.
UP case
Even if it is expressly provided by the parties that in case of breach the injured party may treat the contract as
cancelled– kailangan pa rin ng notice. The injured party must notify the guilty party. The guilty party must be
given the opportunity to give his side nd question the propriety of the recission. Recission is merely provisional
in character in which case, A may go to court in the absence of notice on the part of B and challenge the
validity of the extrajudicial recission made by B
Tolentino, Jurado, De Leon: 1191 should have used the word resolution, not recission (recission is simply
ratification or indemnification for damages)
A and B entered into a contract of sale of a particular parcel of land for 5M 1/1/17 with A binding himself to vest
in B by delivering this parcel of land immediately upon perfection of the contract and B to pay A on 6/1/17.
6/1/17 arrived, A demanded from B the payment of the price, B refised to pay. Suppose on 1/11/18, A filed an
action against B for the recission of the contract on account of B’s substantial delay/delay for unreasonable
period of time.
~ Resolutory in character: A and B must be put prior to the perfection to the contract of sale
1/1/17, A and B entered into a contract where A bind himself to immediately transfer the physical possession of
this particular parcel of land to B immediately upon after the perfection of the contract and B to pay A the
amount of 5M on 6/1/17. Part of their AGREEMENT is that if B is able to pay 5M, A will send the property to B.
6/1/17 arrived, A demanded from B the payment of 5M. B refused to pay, until now. Can A recind the contract?
this particular property to B immediately upon after the perfection of the contract and B to pay A the amount of
5M on or before 6/1/17. Part and parcel of their AGREEMENT is that ownership of this property will be vested
in B upon full payment of the price. 6/1/17, A demanded. B refused to pay until now. Can A avail himself of the
remedy of recission under 1191?
In both cases, similar facts to the case of Romulo Colonel v. CA
In both cases, A has no right to rescind the contract
The remedy of recission is not available to A in both cases. In the first case, the nature of the contract is a
contract to sell. The obligation of A to sell the property did not arise bec. A’s obligation is subject to suspensive
condition that is not fulfilled.
There is no breach, not even casual because the condition was not fulfilled. Wala rin sa 2nd case, there is no
vesting of ownership in B bec. the obligation of A simply did not arise. So there is nothing to recind.
A bound himself to pay B 5M if and when B is married to C. Until now, B is still single. Can B demand from A
the payment of 5M? – NO. bec. pending the fulfillment of suspensive condition, there is no obligation to speak
of.
Romulo Colonel v. CA: If the obligation is subject to a suspensive condition that is not fulfilled, there is nothing
to rescind bec. there is no obligation to speak of.
this particular parcel of land to B immediately upon after the perfection of the contract and B to pay A the
amount of 5M on 6/1/17. Part of their AGREEMENT is that A will immediately transfer to B the ownership of the
property immediately upon perfection of the contract. 6/1/17 arrived, A demanded, B refused to pay, until now
the price remained unpaid.
What if the physical possession of the property is already with B?
How may I recover the same? – the recovery of mere physical possession
The perfection of the contract of sale does not transfer ownership. It is only by way of delivery.
2nd sentence of 1164
Absolute sale
A bound himself to transfer ownership of land to B immed. Upon perfection of the contract and B to pay A 5M
on 6/1/17. 6/1/17 arrived, A demanded payment, B refused to pay. Can A rescind the contract? YES WITH
DAMAGES bec. there are reciprocal obligations. A’S OBLIGATION IS NEITHER SUBJECT TO ANY PERIOD
NOR CONDITION, IT TOOK EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. A may choose between compelling B to the fulfillment
of obli with damages or rescind + damages
A and B 1/1/17 entered into a contract of absolute sale of a particular land for 5M. A, binding himself to transfer
the ownership to B immed. Upon perf, and B to pay 5m on 1/1/17. There is no vesting ownership, only transfer
of ownership. B has all the right to constitute a real estate mortgage or …. So B constituted a real estate
mortgage on the land. 6/1/17, A demanded from B the payment, B refused to pay until now. If you were A what
will you do to protect the interest? A may ask for payment of 5M (but still B refused to pay)
Can A ask for the recission of a contract? NO.
Similar factual setting with Surya v. CA
Recisison can no longer be had bec. the contract of sale has already been novated, changing the principal
condition, contract of sale to contract of____ mortgage
Upon the constitution of B of the real estate mortgage of the land that was bought from A, the contractof sale
has already been consummated. REM will now take care of the 5M obligation which will cover the payment of
the price practically.
Only remedy for A: RECOVERY OF 5M PLUS DAMAGES in the for of interest
If B failed to do so, A may resort to the foreclosure of the REM, have the land sold at a foreclosure sale, the
proceeds thereof to be applied to the 5M obligation. In case of insufficiency, A may ask for a judgment on
deficiency plus interest.
A and B are cousins. They got involved in a little battle of ownership of a lot with A sueing B not only to recover
possession but ownership of the land. B filed his answer to the complaint. During the pre-trial stage of the
proceedings, A and B agreed that A will abandon any rights and interest that he may have in this parcel of
land, for an exchange of B’s promise to pay A for 5M on 6/1/17. 5/5/17 the court rendered judgment on the
basis of … 6/1/17, A demanded, B refused to pay until now
Can A set aside the provision for a compromise agreement? Can A have the contract rescinded? NO. Case of
____ Realty v.CA
While it may be true that the compromise agreement is a contract, it is different from other ordinary contracts in
the sense …
What would be his remedy? – to go for the execution of the judgment
1191 is a favorite bar subject!!! Read the cases
1/1/17 A and B entered into a particular contract of sale of a particular car for 1M payable in 10 equal
installments, upon 1/31/17. The car is already delivered to B to vest ownership of the car and B executed a
chattel mortgage on the car. 1/31/17 A demanded from B the payment of installment, B refused to pay, 2/28/17
B refused to pay, 3/31/17 B did not pay. Can A cancel the contract? YES.
1591-1594 on Sales
Art 1484
Cancellation of the contract of a personal property on sale where the price is payable in installments may be
had if the vendee fails to pay 2 or more installments. There are 3 rmeedies:
1.fulfimment of obli
2. rescind
3. foreclose the mortgage
Once the property is sold on a foreclosure sale and produces only an amount of 700k, the A can no longer
cover the deficiency
Presidential/immovable property MACEDA LAW RA 6552 ART. 1788
OBLIGATIONS WITH A PERIOD
Instances when the court may fix the period
For whose benefit is the period fixed
A promised to give B his particular watch on of before 12/31/18. Can B demand the fulfillment of the obligation
tonight? NO
Can A give his watch to B tonight? YES
~ Period is fixed in favor of A

When does the debtor lose the benefit of the period?
READ: 1190 with 1187 and 1617
When the debtor loses the benefit of the period, that doesn’t mean that he is already in delay. It only means the
obligation demandable as if no period was ever agreed upon the happening of any of the circumstances
enumerated in 1198
#1
1/1/17 A was already insolvent. 2/2/17 A contracted with B a loan of 5M. With A binding himself to pay the loan
on 12/31/18. B tonight demanded from A the payment of the latter’s obligation. A refused to pay. Is A already in
delay?
- NO.
Does A have the benefit of the period?
Did A lose the benefit of the period? NO.
Does A still have the period until 12/31/18 within which to comply with his obligation? YES.
Can B, by reason of his insolvency, demand tonight from A the performance of his obligation? NO. A still has
the benefit of the period. A’s insolvency occurred prior to the constitution of the obligation. A’s insolvency
preceded the constitution of the obligation in favor of B
Could have been different if in 1/1/17, A borrowed money from B amounting to 5M, with A binding himself to
pay on 12/31/18. 2/2/17 A became insolvent. Can B tonight demand from A the payment of the obligation?
YES. Because his insolvency is subsequent from the constitution of the obligation.
Even when if A, despite his insolvency on 1/1/17, constituted a real estate mortgage on one of his lands the
value of which is 1M. Then A may regain the benefit of the period. Notwithstanding his insolvency, B cannot
demand from A the payment of the latter’s obli tonight or any date before the arrival of 12/31/18. – 1198 (1)
Why is it that after the constitution of the obligation, and the debtor becomes insolvent, he loses the benefit of
the period? To protect the creditor. Unless the debtor puts up a current substitute for the payment of the
obligation, in the absence thereof, he loses the benefit of the period, even when the debtor becomes insolvent
after the establishment of the obligation. What is the reason behind the law? – Must the creditor wait until the
arrival of the period? NO. Mag-demand ka na agad kasi insolvent na nga yung debtor mo. Once the debtor
becomes insolvent and he files voluntarily with the courts for the issuance of the pleading declaring himself
insolvent or when his other creditors file a case or petition the courts to declare their common debtor A
insolvent – A’s properties will be collated(??). And the same shall be sold at a public sale. The proceeds to be
divided amongst the creditors in proportion to their respective credits.
#2
A obtained a loan from B amounting to 5M payable on 12/31/18. The loan was constituted on 1/1/17. A
promised to constitute a real estate mortgage on a parcel of land that he owns in Makati. Until now, A has not
constituted a REM. Does A still have the benefit of the period? NO, the law expressly provides 1198, par. 2
(reason behind the law: those who can’t be trusted in small things, can’t be trusted in big things)
A contracted a loan to B in the amount of 5M, payable on 12/31//18. A constituted a chattel mortgage on one of
the cars. Suppose on Jan 15 2018. The car was partially destroyed by a fortuitous event. Does A still have the
benefit of the period? YES. Bec. the impairment of the security of the guaranty is not through his fault but to a
fortuitous event. Partial destruction lang yan.
~ If the impairment is caused by a fortuitous event, the debtor still has the benefit of the period. The only time
that the debtor loses the benefit of the period is when the guaranty or security disappears through a fortuitous
event. Then and only then he loses the benefit of the period. (recall 1174)
Notwithstanding, if the car, subject of a chattel mortgage, is lost through a fortuitous event, the creditor loses
the benefit of the period. Bakit?
Casino: Wala naman akong kasalanan judge sa pagkawala ng kotse, it was struck by a lightning. Why
is it that I by now lose the benefit of the period?
Casino: Because what is lost here through a FE is not the obligation itself but rather the access of the
obligation or the object thereof.
When the debtor violes any undertaking in consideration of which the creditor agreed to a period: A
bound himself to pay B P5Million on 12/31/18 under a contract of loan established on 1/1/2017, to secure the
payment of the obligation A constituted a chattel mortgage on one of his specific cars. Part and parcel of their
agreement is that the car shall not be used to passengers at one point to another. 1/1/2018, B used the car for
Uber/Grab. On 1/15/2018 did A lose the benefit of the period?
Yes for as long as that undertaking is the primary consideration for B to agree to the period.
_
Mere attempt to abscond: A bound himself to pay B P5Million on 12/31/2018. 1/18/2018 while B is checking
in one of the counters of Cathay Pacific in NAIA, he chanced upon A:
B: “Oh saan ka pupunta?”
A: “Pupunta na ako sa Siberia”
B: “Anong gagawin mo doon?”
A: “Doon na ako maninirahan”
B: “Wala ka na bang balak bumalik dito?”
A: “Wala na”
Whereupon B immediately demanded from A the payment of the latter’s obligation (P5Million). Can A
be compelled to pay?
Yes because the mere attempt to abscond is the act contemplated by the law.
A on 1/1/2017 bound himself to pay B 5M on 12/31/2018 to secure the payment of the obligation A
constituted a real estate mortgage on his house and lot. (xxx 1:16:50) A died. 2/9/2018 B chanced upon A at
the airport:
A: “lalayas na ako”
B: “Bakit ka lalayas?”
A: “Madami akong utang”
Whereupon B demanded from A the immediate payment of the obligation, can A be compelled to pay the
obligation immediately? Can A still make use of the period? If you were B what would you do? Must you wait
for the arrival of the period? Isn’t it that there is a possibility that once the property is sold in a foreclosure sale
it can fix the price lower than the amount due?
It always depend upon the circumstances. Kapag yong value is worth more than P10M, A has
the benefit of the period. “Wala akong pakialam tang*** mo maski umalis ka, at wag ka nang bumalik”.
For as long as there is a real estate mortgage registered, in favor of B, the same can be still be binding
even upon third persons owing to Art. 1312. If the value of the thing mortgaged is less than the amount
owed, then by all means, B can demand A the performance of the latter’s obligation because of his
attempt to abscond.
A, on 1/1/2017, bound himself to give B a particular car, a particular house and lot, and a particular cow on
1/31/2018. How many obligations are there?
When it comes to the number of prestations, what are the different kinds of obligation?
If there is only one prestation due, you call that a simple obligation.
If there are several prestations due, you call that a plural obligation or compound.
Plural/ Compound obligations can be further classified into two major kinds:
Conjunctive - as there as several prestations due, but the obligor has to perform all of
them as where on 1/1/2017, A bound himself to deliver to B a particular car, a particular house and lot,
and a particular cow. How many compliance with the obligation by delivering are distinct to B? (no more
about this)
Disjunctive/Alternative - when there are several prestations due but the performance of
one would be sufficient to extinguish the obligation, as when on 1/1/2017, A bound himself to deliver to
B a particular car, a particular house and lot, and a particular cow, the delivery of the cow to B would
suffice to extinguish the obligation. Is it simple or plural? Simple because there is only one obligation
but the obligor may render one in substitute or as a substitute
Who has a right of choice in an alternative obligation?
Gen Rule: The right of choice belongs to the debtor unless it has expressly granted to the creditor
What is the reason behind the law? Why is it that the debtor has the right of choice?
Blockmate: “Because if the right of choice resides to the creditor we might as well call it as NOT an
alternative obligation”
Atty: Really? The very alternative char of alternative oblig subsists and will remain regardless of WON
the right of choice resides in the debtor or in the creditor
Blockmate: “once the creditor has selected ...”
Atty: The same is true with the debtor. If the right of choice resides in the debtor, once he made the
choice and communicate the same to the creditor, the obligation ceases to be an alternative obligation.
It has already become a simple obligation and the choice is irrevocable whether made by the creditor or
the debtor (whoever has the right of choice)
A bound himself to give B a particular car, a particular horse, or a particular cow on 1/31/2018. In the absence
of any express grant to the creditor, A has the right of choice, that is the rule, what is the reason behind the
law? Granted that the law favor the debtor, ano pa?
**(side note)The right of choice whether resides in the debtor or the creditor, the debtor or creditor
cannot choose to perform an obligation or prestation that was never intended to be the object of the
obligation.
Because of the debtor’s close proximity to the prestations of the objects of the prestations. With that,
the debtor is in the better position to determine which of the obligation is more feasible to perform or
which is more practical to perform and that is in a sense will also benefit the creditor.
_
1/1/2017 A bound himself to give B a car, a horse, or a cow on 1/31/2018. 1/5/2018 the car was totally
destroyed while in the possession of A thru the fault of A. The horse also died on 1/10/2018. 1/15/2018, the
cow died also thru his fault. Is A liable for damages?
No, he is not liable for damages on account of negligence because a generic thing never perishes.
A on 1/1/2017 bound himself to give B a particular car, particular horse or particular cow on 1/31/2018.
Suppose on 12/25/2017, kasagsagan ng celebration ng Christmas, nalasing si A, he put the horse and the cow
inside the car, and got his bazooka, pinaputukan niya, lahat nawala simultaneously. Is A liable for damages?
Yes.
What would be the basis of the damages? Given that sabay-sabay silang nagperish?
In the absence of any express grant to the creditor of the right of choice, it belongs to the debtor. Since
all of the things of the different prestations died or disappeared or were destroyed thru the fault of A
simultaneously, then the measure of damages will be based on the thing that A will choose. Kasi
alternative yan eh.
A bound himself to give B a particular car, a particular horse, or a particular cow on 1/31/2018. 1/1/2018, the
car was totally destroyed thru the fault of A. 1/5/2018, the horse died thru the fault of A. 1/25/2018 the cow
died thru the fault of A. A is liable for the damages. What is the basis for the amount of damages?
The basis of the damages that may be recovered by B will the the value of the thing which last
disappeared. In this case, the cow.
What is the reason behind the law why the basis of the damages should the last thing which disappeared?
Upon the death of the horse, the obligation has ceased to be an alternative obligation. It became a
simple obligation to give a particular cow.
***(side note) It goes without saying that if the object are specific and in the absence of any delay on
the part of the debtor, all of them disappeared because of FE, then the debtor is not liable for damages
(1174 in relation to 1165)
A, on 1/1/2017, bound himself to give B a particular house, particular horse or a particular cow on 1/31/2018.
The choice was expressly given to B (the creditor). Suppose, on 1/1/2018, the car, the horse, the cow
disappeared simultaneously through through A’s fault. Is A liable for damages?
Yes. 1170
What would be the basis of damages that can be recovered by B in whose the right of choice resides?
The basis shall be the value of the thing that the creditor chooses because the right of choice is
expressly granted to the creditor.
-
On 1/1/2017, A bound himself to give B a particular car, a particular horse, or a particular cow on 1/31/2018.
The right of choice was expressly granted to B.
1/1/2018 - the car was totally destroyed thru the fault of A
1/5/2018 - the horse died thru the fault of A
1/25/2018 - the cow died thru the fault of A
A is liable for damages. What will the basis of the damages?
The basis will be the value of the thing that the creditor may choose because the right of choice is
granted to the creditor; not the value of the last thing that disappeared.
If A bound himself to give B a particular car, particular horse, or a particular cow, on 1/31/2018. On 1/5/2018,
A told B that he will deliver the car, does he need the consent of B, in order for A’s choice to be valid and
binding? (case of Century Pacific)
SC: for the choice to be binding upon the creditor, the creditor must consent thereto for its approval.
Do you agree with the SC?
No.
Atty. Casino: You disagree with the SC, I agree with you. Why? because if we grant the creditor the
right to consent or the right to object to the choice made and communicated accordingly by the debtor,
it destroys the very alternative character of the obligation. It destroys the right of choice on the part of
the debtor.
If the right of choice is communicated either orally or in writing the same is already irrevocable. It cannot be
changed, it cannot be revoked by the debtor without the consent of the creditor.
What is the reason behind the principle?
if there is that right to revoke that will go against the principle of mutuality of contracts, especially
obligations arising from contracts.
(regarding case above) If B is given the right of choice expressly, once his choice is communicated with A,
such cannot be revoked. What is the reason behind the law that once the choice is communicated, the
obligation ceases to be an alternative and can no longer be revoked without the consent of A?
If the choice has been communicated, it necessarily entails the preparations for the delivery of
whatever the thing chosen or for the acceptance of thing chosen. If such choice is revocable, then that
would force the other party “bla bla” (cannot be heard: 1:46:25) of, maybe, preparation under
different circumstances.
What is a facultative obligation?
Facultative obligation is an obligation when there is a one thing due but the debtor has the right to
render a substitute
A and B, nagsugal, A owes in the amount of P5Million and for which A executed a promissory note binding
himself to pay B P5Million on 1/31/2018. Also in the note, A may choose, instead of paying P5Million pesos, to
deliver a particular car to B also on that day. Facultative obligation? Correct? B, on 1/31/2018, demanded from
A the performance of the latter’s obligation. Can A be compelled to pay P5Million or deliver the car in
substitution?
Obligations arising from contracts have the force and effect of law between the contracting parties and
must be complied with in good faith. And for the contract or for the obligations to be enforceable, or the
contract to be the law between the contracting parties, it must be valid, or if not valid, it must at least be
rescissible or voidable for a rescissible contract is valid until rescinded or a voidable contract is valid
until annulled. Eh, dito? We discussed this before, gambling obligations cannot be enforced. Read
Article 2014. If the principal obligation is void, so much is the substitute. If the substitute is void, the
principal obligation subsists.
When it comes to the number of parties, what are the different kinds of obligations?
Individual obligation and collective obligation.
Individual or singular obligation - has only one debtor and one creditor
Collective or plural obligation - there are two or more debtors or two or more creditors; this may be
classified into 2: joint, solidary, and mixed
(joint) On 1/1/2017, A, B and C bound themselves to pay X, Y and Z P9million on 1/31/2018. How many
obligations are there? What is the nature of the obligation of A, B and C in favor of X, Y and Z?
Joint. The law provides the concurrence of two or more debtors and or the concurrence of two or more
creditors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each of the latter has the right to demand from
each of the debtors to render the entire compliance of the obligation. There is solidary liability when the law
expressly so provides, the obligation expressly so states, or when the nature of the obligation requires that the
obligation be solidary.
In the absence of the law or stipulation declaring that the obligation is solidary, and where the nature of
the obligations does not require solidarity, the obligation is always presumed to be joint whether the object is
divisible or not. Having said that, A, B and C’s obligation is presumed to be joint, and there are as many
obligations as there are debtors and creditors. In the case, there are 9 obligations.
How much can X collect from A? 1Million

How much can X collect from B? 1Million
How much can X collect from C? 1Million
So on and so forth. Alam niyo kung bakit class? A is indebted to X, Y and Z P3Million because that is
his share to the obligation. 1Million goes to X; 1Million goes to Y; and 1Million goes to Z; B is likewise indebted
to X, Y and Z P3Million. Same goes with C.
A indebted to X, Y and Z for P3M
A indebted to X for 1M - obligation 1
A indebted to Y for 1M - obligation 2
A indebted to Z for 1M - obligation 3
B indebted to X, Y and Z for P3M
B indebted to X for 1M - obligation 4
B indebted to Y for 1M - obligation 5
B indebted to Z for 1M - obligation 6
C indebted to X, Y and Z for P3M
C indebted to X for 1M - obligation 7
C indebted to Y for 1M - obligation 8
C indebted to Z for 1M - obligation 9
There are as many separate and distinct obligations as there debtors and creditors in one and the
same obligation.
(mixed)It would have been different if A, B and C solidarily bound themselves to pay X, Y, and Z the
amount of P9Million pesos. How many obligations are there?
There are 3 obligations. In this case, solidary on the passive side (debtors’ side) and joint on the active
side (creditors’ side).
How much X can collect from A? 3Million
How much Y can collect from A? 3Million
How much Z can collect from A? 3Million
because the obligations of A, B, and C are solidary. X is entitled to collect from A, B, and C P3Million; Y
is entitled to collect from A, B, and C P3Million; Z is entitled to collect from A, B, and C P3Million. They can
compel anyone of the solidary debtors to pay P3Million each.
(solidary) What if A, B and C solidarily bound themselves to pay X, Y and Z solidary creditors the
amount of P9Million? How many obligations?
This time, there is only one obligation. X alone can demand from A alone the payment of the entire
obligation, P9Million -- that is the essence of a solidary obligation; that each of the obligors solidarily bound
maybe compelled to fulfil or perform the entire obligation.
Can you give me any provisions of any law requiring solidarity?
Along side Article 1207, you write:
Art.94 of the FC on the charges upon the ACP
Art. 121 of FC on CPG
Art. 146 of FC
Art. 197 in relation to Art. 200 on support
Art. 100 in relation to Art. 110 of the RPC
Art. 32 of CC
Pag quasi-delict or violation of any of the basic crimes the civil liability is always solidary
Art. 2146 on negotiorum gestio; quasi-contract - obligation of the officious manager shall
always be solidary
Art. 2157 solutio indebiti; always solidary
A bound himself to pay B the amount of P5Million pesos on 1/31/2018. To secure the payment of the
obligation, A’s brother, X, constituted a real estate mortgage, on one of his lands. 1/31/2018 arrived, B
demanded from X the payment of the P5Million. X refused to pay. Can B tomorrow foreclose the mortgage?
No. The law provides the concurrence of two or more debtors and or the concurrence of two or more
creditors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each of the latter has the right to demand
from each of the debtors to render the entire compliance of the obligation. There are only three
instances where the obligation is solidary:
(1) when the law expressly so provides
(2) when the obligation expressly so states
(3) when the nature of the obligation requires solidarity
In the case, while it may practically be true that there are 2 debtors -- A is the principal debtor of B, and
X is the accessory debtor B. Take note that the real estate mortgage was constituted by X on his land
thus the real estate mortgage is only an accessory obligation. The fact that X constituted a real estate
mortgage on one of his lands does not make him solidarily liable with A. There can only be solidary
liability when the law expressly so provides, when the obligation expressly so states,or when the
nature of the obligation requires solidarity.
As a matter of fact, B’s demand upon X is improper, it will not result in the foreclosure of the mortgage
because the creditor, B, served the demand to pay upon X who is not the debtor himself. Therefore, A
is not in delay.
A bound himself to pay B the amount of P5Million pesos on 1/31/2018. G, the girlfriend of A na mahal na
mahal si A, told A na “I will guaranty you the obligation to pay B”. Sabi ni A kay B, “B, I have a girlfriend here
who guarantees the payment of my obligation to you payable on 1/31/2018.”
1/31/2018 arrived, B demanded from G the payment of the obligation. G failed to pay. Are both A and G in
default?
Neither of them is in default. The fact that G guaranteed the obligation does not make her solidarily
liable with A. Guaranty is just an accessory obligation.
As a matter of fact, it is only upon B’s excussion of all the properties belonging to A that B may
proceed against G because the guarantor has the benefit of excussion.
If G bound herself solidarily with A in this obligation, then G has ceased to be a guarantor but rather a
surety subject now to the provisions of the CC on solidary obligations.
re: ARTICLE 110 of RPC
A, B and C are the principals in the crime of rape committed against X. D, E and F are the accomplices. G, H,
and I are the accessories to the crime of rape committed against X.
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I were convicted of the crime of rape as principals, accomplices and accessories,
respective by way of a final judgment rendered on 1/1/2018 and by which they were sentenced to suffer for
principal, reclusion perpetua; accomplices, reclusion temporal; accessories, prision mayor, and they were also
directed to pay X the amount of P9Million solidarily.
Thereafter, X, went to I, “pay me now the P9Million pesos that you owe me”. If you were I what will you tell X?
This is the case of People vs Tambus? (Campus? or Tampus?)
not answered by Atty Casino, nagsermon nalang sya
Joint and Solidary Obligations

In joint and divisible obligations, there is a big difference where the object is lost through the fault of anyone of
the joint debtors or when the obligation cannot be performed through the fault of anyone of the debtors
Q: Suppose on January 1, 2017, A and B solidarily bound themselves to X and Y (Solidary Creditors) a
particular car on January 1, 2018, X alone can demand from A alone the delivery of the car on the due date of
the obligation. Y alone can demand from A alone the delivery of the car because the obligation is solidary such
that anyone of the solidary creditors can demand from anyone of the solidary debtors the performance of the
entire obligation. Dec 25, 2017, the car was totally destroyed through the fault of A with X and Y suffering
damages amounting to 8m representing the value of the car and other consequential damages. How much can
X collect from B?
A: 8 m
Q: A and B solidarily bound themselves to deliver to X and Y (Solidary Creditors) a particular car on jan 1,
2018. Jan 31, 2018 arrived, X alone demanded from B alone the delivery of the car. A refused to deliver the
car for no apparent reason. A and B are now in delay. X and Y opted to proceed to the obligation and
transforming it into one of the obligation to pay a certain amount of money, 5m + 3m. How much can X collect
from B?
A: Also 8 m in both cases.
Q:In the first case, suppose B was able to pay X 8m, how much can B recover from A by way of
reimbursement
Q: How much can X recover from B alone. Suppose B was able to pay X 8m, how much can B recover from A
by way of reimbursement?
Q:How much is the share of B in the value of the car?

A: 2.5 ( no share in the consequential damages suffered by X and Y. The same must be borne by A alone, the
guilty party. Therefore, B can recover from A, 8 m minus 2.5, B’s share in the value of the car.2.5+3 = 5.5.
There was no loss or destruction of the object to give. There was only refusal on the part of A, one of the
solidary debtors to perform the obligation
(referring to other hypo) B can collect from A the entire amount the entire 8 m. Why?
A: Because the loss of the car,rendering it impossible for A and B to perform the obligatio, was occasioned by
A’s negligence. A and A alone should bear the loss the value of the car as well as the consequential damages
suffered by the solidary creditors.
v
Question from Kitty:

Q: (referring to previous example) 5/2 tas further divided by 2?
A and B (joint) bound themselves to deliver a specific car to X and Y (joint) on or before jan 31, 2018. Dec
25,2017, thecar was totally destroyed through the fault of a x and y suffered damages amounting to the value
of the car 5 m plus 3 m as consequential damages. Take note that A alone is guilty of negligence so there is no
way for A and B to perform the obligation.
How much can x recover from B? wala. How much can y recover from B? wala because the obligation is joint,
the damage must be borne by A and A alone
Obligation is void. Damages must be borne by A alone. B can use 1174 (fortuitous events)
It would have been different if A and B bound themselves to deliver to x and y deliver a particular car on or
before jan 31, 2018. Jan 31, 2018 arrived, XY demanded AB the delivery of the. If the obligation is joint and the
object of the is indivisible, rights of the creditor may only be prejudiced by their collective acts meaning to say,
they must act together and they must go after all the debtors.
X and Y demanded from A and B the delivery of the car. A and B did not deliver the car because A was
insolvent, how much can X recover from B? The obligation has already been transformed into a monetary
obligation that is divisible in character.
How much can X recover from B? 1..25

A and B jointly bound themselves to pay XY 5m on june 1, 2017. June 1, 2017 arrived, x and y demanded. AB
could not pay because A is insolvent. How many obligations are there?
A: There are as many obligations as there are Debtors and Creditors in a joint obligation.
How much is A’s share? 2.5

How much is B’s Share? 25
How much can X collect from A? 1.25
How much can Y collect from B? 1.25
Damages shall be borne by the guilty party alone In a joint obligatiom

Unlike in a solidary obli, the act of one is not the act of all in a joint obligation as far as the creditors are
concerned. If and when object of prestation to give in a joint and divisible obligation and the same is lost
through a fortuitous event before the debtors can incur in delay, the obligation is simply extinguished.
v
Q: A B C solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ solidary creditors amount of 9m on Jan 31. Jan 31, 2018
arrived,, X demanded from A the performance of the latter’s obligation. How much should A pay X?
A: 9m because the obligation, being solidary in character, anyone of the Solidary creditors may demand from
anyone or all of the solidary debtors the performance of the entire obligation.
Q: ABC Bound themselves to pay 9m to XYZ, solidary creditors, on Jan. 1, 2018. Jan. 1, 2018 arrived, X
demanded from A the payment of the latter’s obligation. How much should A pay X? How many obligations are
there?
A: There are 3 separate and distinct obligations. It is a mixed obligation, joint in the passive side, solidarity in
the active side. X can collect 3m from A, 3m from B, 3m from C
v
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ (S) 9m on Jan.31, 2018. A will pay X if and when X passes
the 2018 bar exams, that B will pay if and when Y is married to B. This afternoon, X demanded from A the
payment of the obligaton. How much should A pay X?
A: 3 m. Why? Solidarity may exist even if the parties thereto are not bound by the same by manner and by the
same terms or conditiond. X, this afternoon, demanded from A the performance of the obligation A is bound to
pay X 3m representing C’s share in the obligation which is 3m because the share of C is not subject to any
period nor a condition therefore is demandable at once.
Q: A paid X 3m this afternoon. Thereafter, Z demanded from C the payment of the latter’s obligation. How
much should C pay Z?
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ (S) 9m on Jan.1, 2018. Jan. 1, 2018 arrived, X demanded
from A the payment of the latter’s obligation. A tendered to X 3m which X accepted with reservation as to the
remaining balance. Suppose on Feb. 12,2018 X demanded from A the payment of the remaining balance. Can
A pay X again notwithstanding that he has already paid? Take note, A has already paid his share of 3m.
A: Until the entire obligation is paid anyone of the solidary creditors may demand from anyone of the solidary
debtors the payment of the entire obligation notwithstanding the fact that there was partial payment on anyone
of them upon whom demand to pay the remaining balance is served.
Q: After payment by A to X of 3 representing C’s share which is neither subject to a suspensive period nor a
condition, Z went to C and asked for payment of the obligation. How much should C pay Z?
Solidarity remains even if the parties thereto are not bound by the same manner period or conditions.
Q: What does the law say on conditional obligations?
A: If the obligation is suspensive upon which an obli is made to depend, pending the fulfillment of the suspen
cond, there is no obligation to speak of. Pending X’s passing to the bar exams, pending Y’s marriage to B, A
and B’s share in the obligation, do not exist at all because their efficacy is suspended.
Art. 1222. A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are derived
from the nature of the obligation and of those which are personal to him, or pertain to his own share. With
respect to those which personally belong to the others, he may avail himself thereof only as regards that part of
the debt for which the latter are responsible.
v
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ, solidary creditors, the amount of 9 m on Jan 1, 2018.The
obligation is secured by a real estate mortgage constituted on the land belonging to Z. As fas A is concerned,
the same is guaranteed by G. Jan 15, 2018 arrived, X alone demanded from A alone the payment of the entire
9m. A paid X 9m. Did A step into the shoes of X after payment?
A: No, there is no subrogation. He is only entitled to reimbursement.
Q: Suppose A paid X 9m on Jan. 15, 2018. Later on, A demanded from C the payment of his share as well as
that of B. C refused to pay. Can A foreclose the mortgage?
Q: what if A proceeded against B alone for the payment of his share as well as that of C? b refused to pay?
Can A proceed against G, the guarantor?
A: No. if the principal obligation has already been performed or paid, the accessory obligation is already
extinguished. Aside from that, A cannot demand from C alone the latter’s share as well as that of B for
purposes of reimbursement. The other solidary debtors are jointly responsible for their respective shares. B
alone can be compelled By A to pay the former’ share, 3m.
Q: Suppose after payment, B became insolvent. How much can A collect from C by way of reimbursement?
A: 4.5m.
v
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ, solidary creditors, the amount of 9m on Jan. 15, 2018. Dec
25, 2017, X became madly in love with A (although pareho silang lalake hahaha), Sabi ni X kay A, please
forget your share to your obligation (3m). Jan. 15, 2018, X demanded from the remaining balance of 6m, can A
be compelled to pay?
A: No. Condonation does not erase the fact that there exists a solidary obligation and the same can be such
until such time the obligation has been fully paid or performed
Q: Dec. 25, 2017, X condoned A’s share. Jan 15 2018, X alone demanded from C alone the remaining balance
of 6m. C paid X 6m. After payment, what happens next is reimbursement of the shares plus interest at the time
of payment. Suppose on Jan. 20, 2018, B became insolvent, how much can C collect from A by way of
reimbursement?
A: C can collect from A 1.5m. Liability is solidary and if one of the debtors is insolvent, his share shall be borne
by all the other solidary debtor. If the obli is already paid, there is no solidary obligation to speak of. There are
consequences of payment by anyone of the solidary creditors.
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ, solidary creditors, the amount of 9m on jan 15, 2018. Dec.
25, 2017, X remitted A’s share. Jan. 15, 2018 arrived, X demanded from C the payment of the remaining
balance of 6m. C paid X 6m. After payment by C, how much can C collect from A?
A: None. A’s share was remitted. A has no obligation to reimburse C.
Q: C became insolvent, how much can C collect from B?

A: 1.5 m. In case of insolvency, the co-debtors shall bear the liability of the insolvent debtor.
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ, solidary creditors, the amount of 9m on jan 15, 2018. Jan
15, 2018 arrived, X demanded from A the payment of the entire obligation. A paid X 9m on Jan. 15. Suppose
on Jan. 16, 2018, Z remitted C’s share in the obligation, how much can A collect from C after payment?
A: A can still collect 3m from C. The remission made by the creditor of his share does not release the latter
from his responsibility towards the co-debtors, in case the debt had been totally paid before the remission was
effected
Reason behind the law: because after the obligation has already been performed in full, there is nothing more
to remit.
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ, solidary creditors, the amount of 9m on or before jan 15,
2018. Dec. 25, 2017, X condoned the entire obligation of 9m. Jan. 15, 2018 arrived, Z demanded from C the
payment of 9m. C paid Z 9m. How much can C recover from A and B by way of reimbursement?
A: He can no longer recover from A and B because the condonation extinguished the obligation.
v
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ solidary creditors, the amount of 9m on jan 31, 2002. A and
B executed a promissory note binding themselves to pay XYZ on or before Jan. 31, 2002. X presented a note
to A for payment on Jan 31, 2002. A refused to pay. Suppose on Jan 1, 2018, X remembered the note that
ABC executed. A paid X the entire amount of the obligation upon the presentment of the note. Can A recover
anything from B And C?
A:No. A debtor cannot recover from his solidarity co-debtors if the payment was made after the obligation has
prescribed or has become legally impossible. Remission came first before payment.
Q: On Dec. 25, 2017, X remitted the entire obligation and the remission was obtained by A alone. Jan. 15,
2018, without any knowledge of the fact that there was complete remission of the obligation, C paid Z 9m upon
demand. Is C entitled to recover anything from A and B?
A: If payment is made after remission, reimbursement cannot be had especially if the remission is total. C can
recover the 9m he paid to Z. There is right to recover what has been unduly paid. An obligation arises from
quasi-contracts.
v
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ solidary creditors, the amount of 9m on or before jan 1,
2018. What if on dec 25, 2017, X without the knowledge and consent of Y and Z assigned whatever rights and
interests that X may have on the obligation to B. Is the assignment valid?
A: VALID. 1625 in relation to 1626, 1624. The assignment made by X, a solidary creditor, in favor of a third
party to a contract is perfectly valid. It is not one of those enumerated by art 1409 on void contracts.
If XYZ did not consent to the assignment, the only consequence thereof is that XYZ are not bound by the
assignment owing to the fact that we have art 1311
Q: Suppose P went to A and demanded the payment of 9m, A paid P in good faith. Is ABC obligation to lay
extinguished?
A: Yes. Art. 1242

Q: Why is it that a solidary creditor cannot assign his rights without the knowledge and coset of the other
solidary creditors?
1239 regulates only the relationship of the debtors and the assignees
Q: Suppose Y went to A after the assignment (no payment yet) and asked for the payment of the entire
obligation, A paid Y 9m. Thereafter, P went to A and demanded the payment of the entire obligation. P
demanded from Y his share. Y was nowhere to be found. What is the recourse of P?
A: To go against the assignor, warranties (you will learn this on sales
v
Q: In a solidary obligation, there is always that mutual agency such that each one of the solidary creditors is
the agent of the other solidary creditors. Can any of the solidary creditors perform acts inimical or prejudicial to
the interest of the other solidary creditors?
A: The solidary creditor can do whatever may do whatever may be useful to the others, but not anuthing which
may be prejudicial to the latter
Q:Can you give me acts that are beneficial to the interest of the other solidary creditors?
1. Interrupting the running of a prescriptive period
2. Demanding the payment in order for the monetary obligation to earn interest
3. Suing the debtors who don’t have a gauranty or security
Q: May there be an instance where an act that is prejudicial to the interest of the other creditors is performed
by anyone of the solidary creditors but the same is binding upon them?
Novation
Compensation
Confusion/merger of rights
Remission/condonation
The creditor who may have executed any of these acts, as well as he who collects the debt, shall be liable to
the others for the share in the obligation corresponding to them
Q: What is confusion?
A: When the characters if debtor and creditor are merged in one and the same person
ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ, solidary creditors, the amount of 9m on jan 1, 2018. In
exchange of the amount received by them, ABC executed a promissory note binding themselves solidarily to
pay XYZ (court order) 9m on jan 1, 2018. The promissory note can be transferred by negotiation. Since the
loan is an order only, the negotiation thereof is completed by endorsement plus delivery by all or one of the
solidary creditors.
Q: Suppose on nov. 1, 2017, X negotiated the note to M. M negotiated the note to N, then to A. Is the
obligation extinguished?
A: Yes. Confusion. It was given to you by negotiation for value. So A is now confused. “Should I pay myself
9m?”
Q: After confusion, how much can Y collect from X? Z from y?... 3 m each
Q: What is compensation?
A: When the parties are the creditors and debtors of each other, the obligations must not arise from the same
acts or transactions otherwise, you have reciprocal obligations
Legal compensation, when both obligations are due and demandable, when the same are already obligated.
Compensation takes effect by operation of law in which the parties are incapacitated at the time compensation
sets in, legally speaking. Even if the parties do not know that compensation has already taken place
Q: Jan. 1, 2017, ABC solidarity bound themselves to pay XYZ solidary creditors 9 m on jan 1, 2018. Suppose
on june 1, 2017, X borrowed money from A amounting to 9m due and payable on jan 5, 2018. As of Jan 5,
2018, the obligation of ABC in favor of XYZ is already compensated or offset by 9m obligation owed to A by X.
This is what you call legal compensation. Of course, before jan 5, 2018, X can validly demand from A the
payment of the obligation but upon the arrival of the due date X’s obli in favor of A on jan 5, 2018, then the
obligations are already extinguished. After that time, both obligations have become due and demandable.After
compensation has already set in, how much can A collect fromB, from C?
A: 3m because in effect A paid X 9m
Q: How much can Y collect from X? Z from X? 3m each

We have legal compensation, conventional and facultative compensation
Q: What is Remission/condonation of obligations?
When the creditor abandons his rights for the debtor
The condonation of monetary obligations, The condonation of obligations to deliver real properties must
observe certain forms required by the law, citing 1356 in relation to 748 and 749. If the value of the personal
property donated exceeds 5000, the donation and acceptance must appear in writing. If it is an immovable
property, donation must be made in a public document and the acceptance must also contained in a Public
instrument because these forms are required by the law for their validity. Otherwise, the condonations or
remissions are void.
ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ solidary creditors the amount of 9 m due on Jan 1, 2018.
Suppose on Dec 25, 2017, X remitted the entire obligation. The total obligation was obtained by A alone. A Is
not entitle to reimbursement since what was performed by X was an act inimical to the interests of Y and Z
such that after remission, X and Y could no longer collect any from A, from B or C but since their rights may not
be prejudiced, X is liable to pay Y and Z, 3m each.
Q: What is novation? To novate means to change
v
3 ways of modifying/extinguishing obligations
1. By changing the principal condition or object the of obligation (from a contract of sale to a contract of
lease and vice versa)
2. Substituting the person of the debtor
3. Subrogation
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ,solidary creditors, the amount of 9m kn Jan 31, 2018.
Suppose on June 1 2017, X and A agreed that instead of ABC paying XYZ 9m on the due date of the
obligation, A would construct a house of string materials on the land belonging to X, the value of which is 12m.
There is now the extinguishment of the 9m obligation. Jan. 31, 2018, Y and Z demanded from X their share in
the obligation. How much are Y and Z entitled to collect from X?
A: 3m each
Q: How much is A entitled to collect from B and C?

A: B and C are bound to pay A 3m each
Y can recover from X 3m each and not 4m because that is their share in the obligation. The was effected by X.
Since only X is bound thereby, Y and Z cannot benefit from the 12m value of the house. It would have been
different if B andC consented thereto and gave their shares. In the absence thereof, 3m would be their
contribution to A.
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves in favor of XYZ solidary creditors to deliver a particular car or a particular
house and lot on Jan 31, 2018. What is the nature of the obligation?
A: Solidary, alternative and indivisible.
Q: How may ABC comply with the obligation?
Q: Can B alone deliver the car to X alone?
Q: Can B alone opt to deliver the house to X alone?
(I will ask this in your midterms)

Q: Who has the right of choice in an alternative obligation?
A: The debtor unless it is expressly granted to the creditor. The choice of A may bind B and C and once
communicated by X, then Y and Z are bound thereby. There is always that principle of mutual agency
Q: ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ, solidary creditors, the amount of 9m on Jan 31,2018. The
obligation was concluded on Jan 1, 2017. At that time A was a minor, 12 years of age. Jan 31, 2018, X
demanded from A the fulfillment of the obligation, A refused to pay. Thereafter, X sued B on Feb 5, 2018. How
much should B pay X?
A: In an action filed by a creditor, the solidary debtor may avail himself of the defenses owing to the nature of
the obligation, to the defenses that are Personal to him and defenses that are personal to the other solidary
debtors. So B is bound to pay X after suit 6m. Why? Because as far as A is concerned, it was not valid
because he was a minor at the time of the establishment of the obligation.
Q: Suppose X demanded from A the payment of 9m on Jan 31, 2018, A refused to pay. Feb. 20, 2018, X
commenced an action against A for the payment of the entire obligation . If you were the counsel of A what
would you do? Will the action prosper?
A: No. X cannot collect from A 6m, the shares of B and C. Not only is the defense of minority personal to A, it is
also an absolute defense. It is as if A is not bound at all to payXYZ
If ABC solidarily bound themselves to XYZ on Jan 31, 2018 10 kilos of marijuana, absolute nullity is a defense
of ABC. The same thing is true in case of gambling. If you were ABC, you should file the court to dismiss for
lack of cause of action, the obligation being a gambling debt cannot be enforced. If ABC and paid XYZ,
recovery can be had.
2014. No action can be maintained by the winner for the collection of what he has won in a game of chance.
But any loser in a game of chance may recover his loss from the winner, with legal interest from the time he
paid the amount lost, and subsidiarily from the operator or of the gambling house.
1222. A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are derived
from the nature of the obligation and of those which are personal to him, or pertain to his own share. With
respect to those which personally belong to the others, he may avail himself thereof only that part of the debt
for which the latter are responsible
If the debt is personal to anyone of the debtors,, the same defenses may be available to the other debtors
against whom the suit is commenced.
v
Q: Jan 1, 2017, ABC solidarily bound themselves to pay XYZ solidary creditors, the amount of 9m on or
before jan 1, 2018. Suppose on Dec. 25, 2017, A became insolvent, X demanded from B the payment of the
entire obligation. B refused to pay. Jan. 31, 2018, X filed a suit against B for payment the entire obligation. Can
B avail of the defense A became insolvent?
Q: Can B be compelled to pay the entire amount of the obligation? B contends that he is only bound to pay 6m
because A became insolvent. Is he correct?
A: No. B and C can be compelled by anyone of the solidary creditors to pay 9m notwithstanding A’s insolvency.
Q: Why is insolvency not a defense for B and C?
A owes B 5M due on Jan 31, 2018. On Jan 31, x without A’s knowledge and consent, went to B and tendered
the payment. B accepted. Is A’s obligation extinguished?
Yes. If a third person pays, W/N there is consent on the part of debtor, once accepted by creditor himself, the
obligation is extinguished. There arises new juridical relationship between the 3rd person and the debtor
A owes B 5M due Jan 31, 2018. They have agreed: If and when does not pay B, debt it will incur interest at
20% per annum. On Jan 29, 2018, without A’s knowledge and consent, X paid B. Suppose tonight Feb. 22, X
demanded from A. A refused to pay X. Can X enforce a penalty?
If a person who pays without the knowledge or with his knowledge but above his objection, what are the rights
of a 3rd person?
Can he compel the creditor to subrogate his right for penalty arising from penalty clause? No. 1237
1. There is a penalty given, X can only recover from A 5M because it is only to that extent to that A was
benefited. A cannot be made to pay 20% of the 5M despite demand coming from X after payment of A’s
obligation to B.
X cannot the penalty because upon payment, the principal obligation has already been extinguished;
penalty is also extinguished. A did not even give his consent. The extinguishment of the principal obligation
extinguished the penalty.
2. A owes B 5M due Jan 31, 2018, secured by Real Estate Mortgage belonging to A. Jan 29, 2018, X without
A’s knowledge and consent, paid B 5M, this was accepted by B. X, under the law, can only demand from A
5M. A refuses to pay. X cannot foreclose the mortgage.
Here, how can he foreclose the mortgage even if the mortgage is registered? In effect, the obligation
was already extinguished by his payment.
3. A owes B 5M due on Jan 31, 2018. It is guaranteed by X without the consent and knowledge of A. Jan. 25,
without the consent and knowledge of A, X paid B. Under the law, X can demand only from A the
reimbursement to the extent A was benefited. Upon A’s failure to pay and his insolvency, (since the law is for
the benefit of the debtor *di ko marinig) he can’t compel B to pay. What is the reason of the law? 1237
In a guaranty, the guarantor will guarantee the payment x x x; A did not consent to the guaranty; X
cannot obligate himself to pay without A’s consent.
If a 3rd person pays the obligation, the obligation is extinguished without the knowledge of the debtor.
It would have been different if there was consent and approval. A is now consenting to the transfer of the
rights. Penalty can be imposed because it can be done only in accordance with the provisions of the Code:
1170 negligence fraud, contravention of tenor
For REM, the same thing. A consented to the payment by X, therefore the security continues to be in effect
because that is the effect of consenting
Subrogation can be had. There is a provision in the NCC for subrogation. 1300 – 1302. 1296(?)
If a 3rd person pays, and he does not want to be reimbursed, upon acceptance by the creditor, the obligation is
extinguished. As to effects of the donation is subject to 748, 749
A owes B 5M due Jan 31, 2018. X went to A and told A that he will pay and says he does not want to be
reimbursed. Is A bound to accept that? A must accept the donation otherwise, there is no donation. Supposed
despite protest of B, X still paid A. Obligation is now extinguished because A can no longer proceed against B
for the payment of the obligation.
Suppose on Feb 5, X died, leaving Y as sole heir. Can Y recover the amount from A? Yes, because there was
no acceptance. Donation was not effective. Suppose X did not die can X go after A for the 5M? Yes. Because
the donation was not effective as there was no acceptance on the part of A. What is the reason behind the
law? Why is the debtor’s acceptance necessary? No one is compelled to accept the generosity of another.
What is the trait of the Pinoys that must be discouraged? Utang na loob. if X accepts the payment, at the end
of the day, A will pay both what he owes. Suppose A becomes SC Justice, X is an accused in a criminal case.
X asks A not to inhibit himself, A will now be forced to acquit X resulting in grave injustice.
A owes B 10M due on Jan 31, 2018. X went to A and told A that he will pay B. Pumayag si A. Obligation is
extinguished. Can X proceed against A? Yes. Suppose X died, leaving Y as sole heir. Can Y go to A and
recover? Yes. It did not follow the form required for a valid donation. If the amount to be donated is above
5,000, it must be in a written instrument. 748, 749
Payment made to a 3rd person, payment made to a creditor. To whom must the debtor pay? 1240.
When is payment to a 3rd person valid? If it redounded to the benefit of the creditor, in which case the benefit to
the creditor must be proven.
Payment to an incapacitated creditor, is it valid? Yes. Absolutely valid? No. Only if thing or payment has been
beneficial to creditor. X X X 1241.
GR: Payment to an incapacitated creditor is invalid. Except: when he has kept the thing or payment was
beneficial to him.
Payment to 3rd person does not extinguish the obligation except when the creditor is benefited. In this case,
proof of benefit redounding to the creditor must be proven. In the absence of such proof, the creditor, upon
being capacitated, or his guardian may still demand from the debtor.
When is proof of benefit to the creditor no longer necessary if payment is made to a 3rd person?
A owes b of 5M due on Jan 31, 2018, A went to B’s house to pay his obligation. A proof payment was
designated. B was not in his house. B found X the only son of B. A paid X. Is the payment to him valid? No.
Payment to X even if accepted in good faith is invalid, because X is a 3rd person notwithstanding that he is B’s
son. He has nothing to do with the credit
On Feb 14, B died of heart attack, is A’s obligation already extinguished? Yes. Upon death of B, leaving X as
sole heir, X has acquired right to the credit after B died
What else?
(2) If the creditor ratifies…. 1241
A owes b 5M. Jan 31 2018. Without the knowledge of B, A paid X, a complete stranger to B. On Feb 4, B
demanded from A. A said that he paid to X, B said it was ok.. Obligation is now extinguished. Prior to
notification, B can still demand from A because payment was made to a 3RD person which does not amount to
the extinguishment of the obligation.
(3) estoppel
B demanded from A. X said “sa akin mo na lang bayaran.” A told B x x x the credit, can I take it? B said ok. A
was made to believe that X had right. That X is a rightful owner of the credit. B, by his conduct, cannot assail
the validity of the payment to X and ask A bakit niya binayaran si X.
(4) pay was made to a person instead of the creditor.
On Jan 1 2017, suppose all the X X X received x x x A executed a promissory note to pay B on order on Jan
31, 2017. On Jan 5, 2018, X stole the note from B. Jan 31, A will pay and X presented the note. A paid X the
5M. Is the obligation extinguished? Payment to a 3rd person notwithstanding good faith does not extinguish the
obligation.
The note is payable to B on order. How can one enforce the rights under the law by presenting the note made
to B? B can demand from A the 5M by presenting the note to him. Before X can become holder of the note, B
must have to endorse the note and deliver the same to X. If there is no endorsement on B’s part, X cannot
demand from A. X is not a holder. Payment to X is payment to a 3rd person.
It would have been different if the note was to bearer, and anyone who comes into possession becomes
holder. And if the creditor pays the bearer, the obligation is extinguished. It is immaterial in such case whether
the taking is in good faith. What the law requires is good faith on the part of debtor. Ex: A owes b 5M due Jan
31. Jan 25, B died, leaving X as his heir. Jan 31, X went to A and demanded the 5M. A paid X 5m without the
knowledge that B previously disinherited X. Payment is valid in this case. Good faith on the part of payor is
required by law, not on the part of person taking.
Other XPNS to the rule:
1626. The debtor who, before having knowledge of the assignment, pays his creditor shall be released from
the obligation
Where should payment be made?
Must the place of payment be expressly agreed upon?
The place of payment or delivery is the place agreed upon. In the absence, where should it take place?
Jan 1, 2017, A became indebted to B for 5 M due on Jan 31, 2018. A lives in Davao, B lives in Manila. Where
should the payment be made?
If they agreed that the place of payment is Cebu, place of payment is Cebu. In the absence where should
payment be made? Domicile of the debtor: Davao. What if constituted in Cavite? In Davao pa rin.
GR: the place agreed upon by the parties

If no agreement, we have to distinguish: whether the object is generic or specific or determinate or
indeterminate.
Jan 1 2017, A & B agreed that A would deliver to B a particular car found in Manila. No place was agreed
upon. A is a resident of Davao. B is a resident of Cebu. Where should delivery take place? Manila. A must go
to Manila and deliver.
Suppose B went to Davao on Jan 31. B spent the ticket for 12k, transportation, hotel, a total of 30K. Who bears
the expenses incurred by B? The creditor B, because the extrajudicial cost will be for the account of debtor
unless otherwise agreed upon because B is duty bound to make all the expenses necessary for the
compliance of the obligation. Who should pay in this case? Judicial costs are the ones pronounced by court.
30k is extrajudicial expense. Despite 1247, b must bear the expenses because of the rules on place payment?
Indeterminate thing, payment (1251) – domicile of debtor; incumbent upon the creditor to go to Davao city;
expenses incurred by A must be borne by B.
2nd case: 2 places. Where should delivery take place? Manila. A goes to manila to delvier. All expenses
incurred is borne by A. a goes to cebu, b pays.
Pag maraming residence, saan ang domicile diyan?
1247 & 1251
A bound himself to deliver to B 5k kilos of jasmine rice on Dec 31, 2018, A has the obligation to hold the said
rice in a deliverable state by putting them in sacks. sabi ni B na ilagay ni A sa litro. Expenses incurred are
incurred by A alone because putting the thing in a deliverable state is part of the obligation of A
1249
What are the special forms of payment?
1. dacion en pago
2. application of payment
3. payment by cession
4. tender of payment
Dacion en pago – 1245 – A bound himself to deliver to B a car on Jan 31. On Jan 31, B demanded from A. A
said that he cannot deliver, that in lieu of the car, he has a parcel of land that is greater in value which he can
deliver to B. B agreed. There is no dacion en pago. There is merely a novation. The law provides that the
obligation must be a debt in money. This is why it is governed by the law of sales.
Dacion en pago example: A owes B 5M. B demanded. A said that to satisfy or in order to pay his 5M debt, he
will give his parcel of land worth 5.5M to B. B agreed. There is dacion en pago.
Why is it governed by law on sales?
It would have been different if A and B agreed that B will stay in the premises for a period of 10 years in
payment of the 5M, there is simply here a novation. Law on lease governs.
Jan 1, 2017, A offered to B a parcel of land for 5M. A and B agreed. This is a sale governed by law on sales.
1245
1. Consent – required in both cases
2. Object – dacion en pago and sale owe it both their nature….
3. There is a price or consideration – 5M
A’s obligation upon delivery of the parcel of land does not end there. He must guaranty that the properties are
free from hidden defects; that A has the right to dispose such property.
In sale – there is alienation.
1245 -1450
In dacion – once the act is perfected, it results in the extinguishment of the obligation/debt
Sale- once perfected, it gives rise to 2 reciprocal obligations – seller to deliver, buyer to pay
What is application of payment?
What are the requisites?
1. There must be one debtor and creditor
January 1 2017 A is indebted to X for 5M due Jan 31, 2018. Feb 5, 2017, the same day, A, B, & C solidarity
bound themselves to pay X. Are the rules applicable in this sense?
Feb 5 - C went to X and tendered payment.
YES. Only with respect to A. if A pays X, and A expressed that his payment shall be made to apply to his 5M
obligation, then so be it because preferential right of choice is given to the debtor. If C paid X, the same cannot
be applied to pay the obligation owed by A to X because C has nothing to do with the first obligation. It has
nothing to do with the first obligation as far as C is concerned.
1252, 1253, 1254 will apply not with respect to other solidary debtor
A owes X 5M due Jan 31, 2017. Jan 5, 2017 A became indebted again to X due on Feb 1, 2018, guaranteed
by B. Feb 1, B went to X and tendered 5M. It can apply only to the firs obligation because B has nothing to do
with the first obligation. Only the debt which he guaranteed must be paid. 1252 in re 1790-1794
What are the reqs:
There must at least be 2 obligations.
Jan 1, 2017, A borrowed from B 5M, due Jan 31, 2018. They agreed that upon failure to pay, it I will incur 20%
per annum interest. There is only one obligation, yet the provisions of the Code on application of payment can
be made to apply.
Supposed X tendered to B with reservation. Payment must be applied first to the interest
It can apply even if there is only one obligation.
It must be of the same nature and character
Jan 1, A bound himself to pay B 5M on Jan 31, 2018. March 1 2017, A borrowed from B 10M due on Feb 14.
Both obligations are of the same nature, and differ X X X X May 1, 2017 A bound himself to deliver to B a car
on Feb 14, 2018. The rule will not apply because both obligations are not of the same nature.
In conjunctive obli, alternative obli, there is only one obli. As when A bound himself to pay B 5M, and deliver a
car. There is only one obli, with several prestations due. Then apply the application on payment rules. Unless
1253 applies.
Are there several obli not of the same object and date yet the rule on payment rules will apply? For the rule to
apply:
Determine the nature of the obli at the time of payment and application. Not at the time of constitution of the
obligation but at the time of their CONSUMMATION(?)?
Jan 1 2017 A bound himself to pay B 5M on Jan 21. May 1, A bound himself to deliver a car on Feb 14. On
Dec 27, 2017, the car was totally destroyed by A’s negligence. Obli to deliver is now converted into an obli to
pay damages of 6M. Both obli are now of the same nature. Suppose A paid B 3M, according to A, at the time it
was made, bayaran muna kita, iaapply sa loss of car, pwede? Yes! Because both obli X X X but they are of
the same nature and X X X character
Jan 1, 2017 A borrowed from B 5M due on Jan 31, 2018. Feb 5, 2017, A bound himself to pay B 6M with A
promising to pay B on or before Jan 31, 2018. What if Jan 31, B went to A demanding the 3M. A said can you
please apply this to extinguish the 6m obligation? Yes. Obligation with a period. For whose benefit is it fixed?
Both. Here it is for A’s benefit. “on or before” it is discretionary for A to pay A on or before the date.
If A on Jan 1, 2017 bound himself to pay B 5M. A contracted another obli the amount of 6M on Dec 31, 2018,
this time the obli on application for payment cannot apply. Both obli were not yet due X X X
A owes B 5M due Jan 31, 2018. Feb 25, 2018 he borrowed again 6M due Feb 2, 2018. A went to B tendered
11M, are the rules applicable? No, because the amount is sufficient to tender both.
Take note of the reqs
Who has the preferential right in determining which of the obli will be extinguished by the payment? The
debtor, unless there is an express stipulation to the contrary.
Is this preferential right extinguished by payment, absolute?
No. A owed B 5M, due Jan 31, 2018. Jan 13, 2017, he became indebted for 6M due on Feb 14, 20218. A went
to be and tendered to B 5M, and told B that it will apply to extinguish the 6M debt. Can B be compelled to
accept the tender and the application? No. PRESTIGE (OMG sorry di ko marinig) – creditor cannot be
compelled to accept partial payment
A owes B 5M due January 3, 2018, subsequently, he owed 6M due Dec 31, 2018. Jan 31, A went to B and
tendered 5M with A telling B that the second obli shall be extinguished. Can it be done? No, because the
debtor cannot choose the obli. It is subject to a suspensive period where the period is not fixed for his benefit.
It is fixed for both A and B
Ano pa?
When there is an express agreement
It is always the debtor to whom the obligation must be paid
What is payment by cession?
For it to be valid, what are the reqs? *there are several kinds; that which is under the Civil Code -VOLUNTARY
CESSION.
Involuntary or judicial – creditors file a petition to declare their debtor insolvent.
Reqs: there must be one debtor and multiple creditors
Does the law require that the debtors be insolvent or at the Beak of insolvent
When is he insolvent? When his estate or properties can no longer meet his obligations. If your obligations are
greater than your property, you are insolvent. Insolvency is required.
What are distinctions between dacion en pago and payment by cession.
In cession – there must be multiple creditors;
in dacion,
A owes B 5M due Jan 31, 2018. In another obli, A owes C 6M due on Jan 31 2018. A owes B 7M due on Feb
14. Can there be dacion en pago here? There are separate and distinct credits independent of each other, may
there be dacion? Yes.
Suppose on Feb 14, B, C, D simultaneously demanded. A said he did not have Cash but he has a real
property valued at 20M. A proposed to B and C, he transferred his property. The 3 creditors are co-owners.
This is dacion
In cession, only the mgmt. and administration of the properties belonging to the debtor are transferred to the
creditor. This includes the right to sell
A owes B, 5M. A owes C 6M. A owes D, 7M. At the time of his insolvency he had several properties valued at
9M. Payment by cession. A said wala na siyang pera, just get my property and sell the profit to be distributed
to them proportionately. They may sell at a public sale.
Payment by cession requires insolvency. In dacion enpago, it does not.
Insolvency does not transfer ownership, in cession. It only transfers the administration, mgmt and right to sell.
In dacion, what is involved is only a part of the estate. In payment by cession, his entire estate is involved
except those exempted from execution.
What is meant by tender of payment?
A owes B 5M due Feb 22, 2018. Feb 22, A went to B and told B: I won’t pay you immediately, I will have that
amount only on Dec 25. Is there a valid tender or payment? Yes
Tender of payment - manifestation of INTENTION to extinguish obli by payment accompanied by immediate

performance. Pag sinabi mong ito na ang 5M, I will not pay this. Pero pag sinabi mong I am now ready, hindi
yan tender; manifestation of readiness must be accompanied by immediate action, otherwise there is no
tender, there is only promise to pay
What is consignation? Act of depositing the thing or things due.
A owes B 5M due on Jan 31. Jan 31, A went to B and tendered to B the check amounting 5M. B refused to
accept. On Feb 20, A went to court to compel b to accept the payment accompanied by the actual deposit of
the check with the court. Will the action prosper? No. because of the identity of the obligation. Monetary
obligation must be made on terms agreed upon, in the absence that which is X X X creditor can validly refuse
to accept check. Hindi naman tender ang check. There was here a just and valid cause to reject the payment.
A owes B 5M payable if and when A passes the 2018 bar. Jan 31, A tendered to B his obli. B refused. Can a
go to court and file for B’s acceptance and consign the 5m? obligation of efficacy do not depend upon a future
and uncertain event, are due and demandable at once. If an obligation is subject to suspensive condition, then
then suspensive condition is not yet obtained, there is no obligation to speak of. If A decides to await the
fulfilment of the condition then there is duration. B cannot accept the generosity of a.
A bound himself to pay B 5M on Dec 31, 2108. Jan 31- A went to B and tendered, B refused to accept. Can A
file an action with the court? The debt is due. But it is not yet demandable. B is right to refuse the payment
Jan 1, 2018, A bound himself to deliver to B, Mocha (horse) on Jan 31 ,2018. On June 1, 2017, the horse gave
birth to an offspring, Harry Roque. Jan 31, 2018, A went to B and delivered the horse Mocha. B refused to
accept because he said he is entitled to the foal Harry. Can A go to the court and deposit the horse alone?
Creditor has the right to the fruits of the thing from the time the obligation to deliver it arises. A has the right to
retain possession of the foal.
1164. B is not entitled to the foal. Why? It was born before his obligation to deliver the horse arose. A has the
right to retain possession of the foal.
Suppose A bound himself to deliver to B a particular horse named Mocha, subject to the condition that B will
marry C. June 1, 2017, the horse give birth to a foal named Harry Roque. Suppose on Dec 31, 2017, A
married C. Jan 31, 2018, A tendered the delivery of Mocha, B refused. All things within the commerce of men
may be consigned. Real property – by delivering the instrument evidencing the obligation plus document
evidencing the debtor’s title to the property. paano pag sampung kilo ng x x x, pwede ba? For as long as you
put all the things in the custody of the court, there is consignation.
Jan 5 2018 A went to B and tendered the horse, he retained the foal. Is consignation proper? Was there an
unjust refusal? (nalito ako sa answers kaya di ko na nitype sorry)
Jan 5 2018 A went to B and tendered the delivery of the horse to B. B refused kasi wala ung foal. Was his
refusal just or not? Why was the refusal unjust? the Civil Code provides that even when the suspensive
condition is FULFILLED, it retroacts to the day the obligation was established. Still the same is not applicable.
1164 will still apply. If there is a unilateral obligation, X X X
If there are reciprocal obligations, then the fruits and interests are deemed to have been mutually
compensated. B’s refusal is unjust and proper in this case.
Under the law, before consignation can be had, there must first be a valid tender of payment.
X x x To enable the debtor to proceed directly with the consignation
1. The creditor has X X X
2.
Is there a need for declaration?
When is a person absent? When he disappears, when his whereabouts are unknown 1189 is the mere
absence sufficient to Warrant consignation? No. the debtor must first determine with certainty W/N the creditor
has a representative. Only upon absence of representative can the debtor consignation. The same is true for
incapacitated creditors, 1141 it is incumbent upon the creditor to look for the guardians. The parents of the
minor are his guardian
3. x x x
Anomaly : why is it if the creditor refuses to issue receipt, consignation can be had? Because the receipt is the
most competent evidence that the obli has already been extinguished. In order for the debtor to excuse
himself, the burden of proof rests upon him that the obli has been distinguished by presentation in evidence
that the receipt has been issued.
4. When there 2 or more persons claiming right to the same credit. No person may be vexed twice for the
occupancy or use of the same thing or for the same period of years. That is the reason behind the law.
5. when the title of the obligation has been lost
Promissory note. A bound himself to pay B 5M on Jan 31, executed a promissory note payable to bearer. A
said before I pay, please present to me the Promissory Note. Sabi ni B nawawala. Will you pay B? To ensure
that he will not pay twice, must A go to court?

Oblicon Midterms Transcript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oblicon Midterms Transcript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oblicon Midterms Transcript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Does the law require that civil obligation have a pecuniary value or be capable of pecuniary

Yes. Otherwise such an obligation will be rendered nugatory or illusory.

The prestation is the object of the obligation.

A – debtor, passive subject

B – creditor, active subject

Why is the creditor considered an active subject?

What is the object of A’s obligation?

Obligation to give B a specific car*

There are three prestations: to give, to do, not to do,

What are the sources of rights?

Law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delict, quasi-delict

Why is there an active subject?

What is meant by law?

No. Art. 1155

Give an example of an obligation arising from law.

Taxes – duty of each and possessor to pay tax.

If there is Employer-employee relationship, it presupposes that there is an employment contract. Obligation

Why are obligations arising from law not presumed?

How should the law be construed?

Must it conform to the Constitution?

If it does not, it is invalid. It is as if no law has been constructed at all.

No law shall be passed in violation of the obligations and contracts,

But except where the state exercise power of eminent domain.

Is it necessary that the contract be valid?

What if one is a minor or incapacitated?

In Solutio Indebiti, what if there was negligence?

What are crime, offense, and felony?

Why may civil obligation arise from delict?

Yes. Art 12, RPC—Exempting Circumstance.

Fines v. civil liability

Define fault or negligence.

1173, culpa contractual, not quasi-delict or culpa aquilianna.

Quasi-delict is a substantive and independent source of obligation.

What will P do to recover the damages?

This is subject to the rules against double recovery (2177)

In quasi-delict, the nature of the obligation is solidary.

What does an obligation to give consist in?

Payment of money, delivery of a thing,

What does an obligation to do consist in?

Performing services required

What does an obligation not to do consist in?

Refraining from performing an act forbidden under the obligation

When is a thing generic or determinate?

Art 1173 in relation to 1163.

This is why we need to distinguish the objects of the prestation.

Define diligence of a good father of a family

It is defined by the law in the negative. 1173

How does the law define negligence?

What are the other obligations of a debtor in an obligation to give?

June 1, 2017. The birth followed the maturity of the obligation.

When does the obligation to give a determinate thing arise?

The rule is different in Sales.1537 in relation to 1164

If A breached his obligation by the total destruction of the car, is he at fault?

Is A guilty under this case?

Art 1163, obligations to give application to specific particular things only.

A generic thing never perishes.

1163, talks about proper diligence of diligence of a father

What is meant by proper diligence? Performance of the obligation.