ARTICLE 1158Obligations

derived from law are not

presumed. Only those expressly
determined in this Code or in
special laws are demandable
and shall be regulated by the
precepts of the law which
establishes them; and as to
what has not been foreseen, by
the provisions of this Book
 LEGAL OBLIGATIONS

 **Obligations arising from law.

 **Not presumed, considered as

burden to obligor.

 **Exception, not the rule.

 **Must be clearly set forth in the law
to be demandable
 EXAMPLES:

 1.An employer has no obligation to

furnish free legal assistance to his
employees because no law requires
this. No reimbursements shall be
held for the amount paid to a lawyer
by an employee to recover damages
while in the performance of his
duties.
 2.A private school has
no legal obligation to
provide clothing
allowance to its
teachers because there
is no law imposing this
upon schools.
 3.A person who wins
money in gambling has
the duty to return his
winnings to the loser.
 ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:CASE

 1:Liability of husband for medical

assistance rendered to his wife but
contracted by his parents.

 Facts: X, by virtue of having been

sent for by B and C, attended as
physician and rendered professional
services to a daughter-in-law of B
and C during a difficult and laborious
childbirth.
 Issue:
 Who is bound to pay
the bill: B and C, the
parents-in-law of the
patient, or the
husband of the latter?
 Held: The rendering of medical assistance
in case of illness is comprised among the
mutual obligations to which spouses are
bound by way of mutual support. If
spouses are mutually bound to support
each other, there can be no question that
when either of them by reason of illness
should need medical assistance, the other
is to render the unavoidable obligation to
furnish the services of a physician and is
liable for all expenses, including the fees
for professional services.
 CASE 2:

 Title to property
purchased by a person
for his own benefit but
paid by another.
 Facts:

 X, of legal age, bought two

vessels from B, the
purchase price thereof
being paid by C, X’s father.
Subsequently, differences
arose between X and C.
The latter brought action
to recover the vessels, he
paid the purchase price
 Issue:

 Is there any obligation

on the part of X to
transfer the ownership
of the vessel to C?
 Held: None. If any such obligation was
ever created on the part of X, said
obligation must arise from law. But
obligations derived from law are not
presumed. Only those expressly
determined in the Civil Code or in
special laws are demandable.
Whatever right C may have against X
either for the recovery of the money
paid or for damages, such payment
gave him no title, either legal or
equitable, to these vessels.
 Note: If X were a minor,
the vessels would belong
to C in ownership and
usufruct under Article
161 of the old Civil Code.
(now Art. 324)
 Under Article 1448, the
payment may give rise
to a gift or an implied
 MUTUAL OBLIGATION -
Established between
married couple.

 SPECIAL LAWS -All laws

not contained in Civil Code
 Obligations derived from
law, never presumed;
 The obligation of parents to
support their minor (Art, 195
FC)
 Obligation to pay taxes
(Internal Revenue Code)
 Obligation to deliver the
presumptive legitimes of
children (Art 51, FC)
 When the act itself is the source
of the obligation and not the
law:
 The law merely acknowledges the
existence of an obligation generated
by an act;
 It constitutes a contract, quasi-
contract, delict or quasi-delict;
 Its only purpose is to regulate the
obligation which did not arise from
the law.
 When the source of the
obligation is the law itself:
 The law creates the obligation;
 The act upon which it is based is
nothing more than a mere factor for
determining the moment when it
becomes demandable.
 Jaravata vs. Sandiganbayan
 March 25, 2016
 G.R. No. L-56170 January 31, 1984
 HILARIO JARAVATA petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
 Franco L. Loyola and Sabas
Cacananta for petitioner.
 FACTS
 On or about the period from April 30, 1979 to May
25, 1979, in the Municipality of Tubao, Province of
La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, Hilario Jaravata, being then
the Assistant Principal of the Leones Tubao, La
Union Barangay High School and with the use of
his influence as such public official and taking
advantage of his moral and official ascendancy
over his classroom teachers, with deliberate intent
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously made demand and actually received
payments from other classroom teachers, ROMEO
DACAYANAN, DOMINGO LOPEZ, MARCELA
BAUTISTA, and FRANCISCO DULAY various sums of
money, namely: P118.00, P100.00, P50.00 and
P70.00 out of their salary differentials, in
consideration of accused having
 officially intervened in the release of
the salary differentials of the six
classroom teachers, to the prejudice
and damage of the said classroom
teachers, in the total amount of
THREE HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT
(P338.00) PESOS, Philippine
Currency. (Decision, p.1-2.)
 After trial, the Sandiganbayan
rendered the following judgment:
 WHEREFORE, accused is hereby found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
Violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act
No. 3019, as amended, and he is
hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate imprisonment ranging
from ONE (1) YEAR, is minimum, to
FOUR (4) YEARS, as maximum, to
further suffer perpetual special
disqualification from public office and
to pay the costs.
 No pronouncement as to the civil liability it
appearing that the money given to the
accused was already refunded by him. (Id.
pp, 16-17.)
 Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
provides, inter alia the following:
 Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.
— In addition to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law,
the following shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
 xxx xxx xxx
 (b) Directly or indirectly requesting
or receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or
for any other person in connection
with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any
other party, wherein the public
officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law.
 xxx xxx xxx
 ISSUE
 The legal issue is whether or not,
under the facts stated, petitioner
Jaravata violated the above-quoted
provision of the statute.
 HELD
 A simple reading of the provision has to yield a negative
answer.
 There is no question that Jaravata at the time material to
the case was a “public officer” as defined by Section 2 of
R.A. No. 3019, i.e. “elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the
classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even normal from the government.” It
may also be said that any amount which Jaravata
received in excess of P36.00 from each of the
complainants was in the concept of a gift or benefit. The
pivotal question, however, is whether Jaravata, an
assistant principal of a high school in the boondocks of
Tubao, La Union, “in his official capacity has to intervene
under the law” in the payment of the salary differentials
for 1978 of the complainants. It should be noted that the
arrangement was “to facilitate its [salary differential]
payment accused and the classroom teachers agreed
that accused follow-up the papers in Manila with the
obligation on the part of the classroom teachers to
reimburse the accused of his expenses
 There is no law which invests the
petitioner with the power to intervene in
the payment of the salary differentials of
the complainants or anyone for that
matter. Far from exercising any power, the
petitioner played the humble role of a
supplicant whose mission was to expedite
payment of the salary differentials. In his
official capacity as assistant principal he is
not required by law to intervene in the
payment of the salary differentials.
Accordingly, he cannot be said to have
violated the law afore-cited although he
exerted efforts to facilitate the payment of
the salary differentials.