Divisible and Indivisible Obligations
Divisible and Indivisible Obligations
Divisible and Indivisible Obligations
2. Yes. Under Article 1225, “When the obligation has for its object the execution
of a certain number of days of work, the accomplishment of work by metrical
units, or analogous things which by their nature are susceptible of partial
performance, it shall be divisible”. Here’s personal obligations wherein the
execution of performance varies in a certain days of work is considered
divisible.
In ruling that the contract between the parties intended to cover divisible
obligations, the Court of Appeals highlighted: (a) the separate purchase price of each
item; (b) petitioners’ acceptance of separate deliveries of the units; and (c) the separate
payment arrangements for each unit. However, through the specified terms and
conditions, the tenor of the Letter Agreement indicated an intention for a single
transaction. This intent must prevail even though the articles involved are physically
separable and capable of being paid for and delivered individually, consistent with the
New Civil Code:
Article 1225. For the purposes of the preceding articles, obligations to give definite
things and those which are not susceptible of partial performance shall be deemed to be
indivisible.
When the obligation has for its object the execution of a certain number of days of work,
the accomplishment of work by metrical units, or analogous things which by their nature
are susceptible of partial performance, it shall be divisible.
However, even though the object or service may be physically divisible, an obligation is
indivisible if so provided by law or intended by the parties. (Spouses Alexander and
Julie Lim vs. Kodak Philippines, Ltd. G.R. No. 167615, January 11, 2016)
In the present case, while the hardware and software are, by their nature,
separable, the parties, however, intended to treat them as indivisible. Such being the
case, the software cannot then be procured without the accompanying hardware on
which they are embedded. In other words, what was purchased by the COMELEC was
the whole system, that is, the entire first component of the original AES Contract, which
includes the software needed for the PCOS machines consisting of the Election
Management System (EMS) and the PCOS firmware applications, protected by our
copyright laws, together with the hardware. Being inseparable by contractual stipulation,
the COMELEC is thus required to procure the hardware and the proprietary software
and firmware provided by Smartmatic-TIM. (Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla, et.al., vs.
COMELEC, et.al., G.R. No. 201112, October 23, 2012)