Article 1156 Relations at ng Title XVIII ng aklat na ito na During the war of the revolution, Fr.
ring the war of the revolution, Fr. de la
DECEMBER 7, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Ang obligasyon ay ang juridical necessity
na magbigay, gumawa o hindi gumawa.
Article 1157
DECEMBER 6, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Ang mga obligasyon ay sumisibol mula sa:
Law (Batas)
Contracts (Contrata)
Quasi- Contracts
Acts or Omissions Punished by Law; and
Quasi-delicts
Article 1158
DECEMBER 5, 2014 / BONG REYES
Ang pananagutan mula sa batas ay hindi
ipinagpapalagay. Ang mga tiyak na
ipinahayag lamang sa koda o sa espesyal
na batas ang maaaring habulin at at
isaayos ng mas malalim na batas na
nagawa na at sa ano pa wala pang nakatala
sa mga probisyon ng Aklat na ito.
Article 1159
DECEMBER 4, 2014 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang mga obligasyon na nagmumula sa mga
kontrata o kasunduan ay may bisa sa
pagitan ng dalawang nagkasundo at dapat
ay tuparin ng pasubali.
Article 1160
DECEMBER 3, 2014 / ALLAN PAILAN
Ang mga obligasyon na hinango mula sa
quasi-contracts ay dapat na ayon sa mga
probisyon ng Chapter 1, Title XVII ng aklat
na ito. (n)
Article 1161
DECEMBER 2, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Ang mga obligasyong sibil na nagmumula
sa mga criminal na opensa ay dapat
pamunuan ng mga batas na pang penal, na
naayos sa mga probisyon ng Artikulo 2177
at ng mga pertenenteng probisyon ng
Chapter 2, Prelimary Title sa Human
Gregorio de la Pea is not liable for the
nagsasaayos ng mg danyos.
Article 1162
DECEMBER 1, 2014 / BONG REYES
Ang mga obligasyon na nagmula sa quasi-
delicts ay nasasakupan ng probisyon ng
Chapter 2, Title XVII ng Aklat na ito, at ng
mga espesyal na batas.
Article 1163
DECEMBER 4, 2014 / JAIME ROBILLON
Bawat tao may pananagutan magbigay ay
tamang pagkalinga tulad isang ama ng
tahanan, malban ang batas o kasunduan
na nangangailangan ng naaayon na kalinga
Case Digest by Ainna Fathi
Case: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro v.
Gregorio de la Pea (26 PHIL. 144), Nov.
21, 1913
FACTS PETITIONER-APPELLEE: The
Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: Gregorio de la
Pea (administrator of the estate of Father
Agustin de la Pea
PONENTE: Moreland, J.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro brought
action against the appellant, Gregorio de la
Pea, who was the administrator of the
property of the deceased Fr. Agustin de la
Pea (deceased- 1900), to recover the sum
of P6,641 (Mexican currency) in the Court
of First Instance in Iloilo.
The amount of money in question, was
collected by the deceased priest, as an
authorized representative to collect fees
for the construction of a leper hospital.
The appellee was a trustee of such
charitable bequest. The same amount was
deposited, along with Fr. de la Peas
personal funds, in the Hong Kong and
Shanghai Bank of Iloilo.
DECEMBER 3, 2014 / ALLAN PAILAN
Pea was arrested by the military
authorities as a political prisoner. His bank
funds were confiscated as the military
authorities thought that the funds were for
revolutionary purposes.
The CFI of Iloilo awarded the plaintiff
P6,641 with interest at the legal rate from
the beginning of action, thus this appeal.
ISSUE/S Whether Father de la Pea is
liable for the loss of the bequest money by
placing it in his personal bank account?
LAWS Article 1094 (The Civil Code of
the Philippines): A person obliged to give
something is also bound to preserve it with
the diligence pertaining to a good father of
a family.
Article 1163 (The New Civil Code of the
Philippines): Every person obliged to give
something is also obliged to take care of it
with the proper diligence of a good father
of a family, unless the law or the
stipulation of the parties requires another
standard of care. (1094a)
Article 1105 (The Civil Code of the
Philippines): No one shall be liable for
events which could not be foreseen, or
which having been foreseen were
inevitable,
with the exception of the cases expressly
mentioned in the law or those in which the
obligation so declares
Article 1174 (The New Civil Code of the
Philippines): Except in cases expressly
specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when
the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could
not be foreseen, or which, though
foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)
HOLDINGS No. Fr. de la Pea and
his trustee (or estate administrator),
loss of the bequest money.
Fr. de la Peas liability is determined by
portions in the Civil Code that relate to
obligations (Book 4, Title 1.) and the New
Civil Code (Book 4, Title 1.)
Although Article 1094 of the Civil Code,
now, Article 1163 (The New Civil Code)
discusses that a person obliged to give
something is also bound to preserve it with
the diligence pertaining to a good father of
a family, it also states that no one shall
be liable for events which could not be
foreseen, or which having been
foreseen were inevitable, with the
exception of the cases expressly
mentioned in the law or those in which the
obligation so declares (Article 1105, the
Civil Code and Article 1174, The New Civil
Code).
The precise question is not about
negligence as we cannot measure nor say
if Fr. de la Pea was indeed negligent by
depositing the donated funds in his bank.
We cannot also do the same if he just left
the funds in his home or if he deposited
the amount in a separate account as a
trustee. No law prohibited him from
depositing the amount as he did and no
law changed his responsibility because of
that act. While one who is under obligation
to give a thing is obliged, when he foresees
events which may be dangerous to his
trust, to exhaust all means and measures
to elude or, if unavoidable, to mitigate the
effects of those events, the Supreme Court
held that in choosing between two means
equally legal, with two possible same
repercussions, making him negligent in
selecting either, Fr. de la Pea was not
responsible for the loss of the amount in
question.
The judgment was reversed.
Article 1164
Ang nagpapautang ay may karapatan sa
mga bunga ng mga bagay na mula sa
panahon na naipagkaloob na. Gayun pa
man, hindi nya makakamit ang tunay na
karapatan hanggang ang nasabing
karapatan ay naipagkaloob sa kanya.
Article 1165
DECEMBER 2, 2014 / DIONE MENDOZA
Kung ang kinakailangan gawin o ibigay ay
isang determinang bagay, ang nagpautang,
ayon sa karapatan na ipinataw sa kanya ng
Article 1170, ay pwedeng pilitin ang
umutang na gawin o ibigay ang bagay na
ito.
Kung hindi determina ang bagay, pwede
nya ipakiusap na ang obligasyon ay
magawa mula sa pananagutan ng
umutang.
Kung ang umutang ay nahuli sa pagtupad o
nangako na gawin o ibigay ang bagay na ito
sa dalawa o higit na mga tao na walang
kinalaman sa obligasyon, siya ay
responsable sa kahit ano mang di inaasang
pangyayari hanggat hindi nya nagagawa o
naibibigay ang bagay na iyon.
DISCUSSION BY BONG REYES
Concept of Determinate and
Indeterminate thing
1. Determinate or specific thing- example
are gold jewelries like necklace, ring,
earrings and other accessories made up of
gold
2. Indeterminate or generic thing- example
is an ounce of gold
Effect of Fortuitous Events on Determinate
or Indeterminate Things
General Rule- A debtor is relieved from
obligation to give if the thing was lost
through fortuitous event.

Exception- if the obligor delays and if he
was bound to give the thing whatever
happened.
Article 1166
DECEMBER 1, 2014 / DIONE MENDOZA
Ang obligasyon para magbigay ng
determinang bagay ay bahagi ang pag
gawa o pag bigay ng bagay na ito at ang
kanyang mga accessions and accessories
kahit na hindi nabanggit ang mga ito.
Article 1167
NOVEMBER 30, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Kung ang tao ay obligado na gumawa ng
isang bagay at hindi nya nagawa ito, and
pag gawa o pagkumpleto nito ay
maipapataw sa kanya.
Itong patakaran na ito ay kailangan tuparin
kung taliwas ang pag gawa ng bagay na ito
sa napagkasunduan. Ganun din kung ang
pag gawa ng bagay na ito ay hindi ayon sa
napagkasunduang pamantayan, ito ay
maaring ipa bawi o ipa giba.
Article 1168
NOVEMBER 29, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Kung ang obligasyon ay masasalay ang
hindi pag gawa ng isang bagay at ito ay
ginawa ng obligor, ang bagay na ito ay
kailangan maisabalik sa dati sa kapinsalaan
o sa gastos ng obligor.
Article 1169
NOVEMBER 28, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Ang mga obligadong mag hatid o
magsagawa ng isang bagay ay mababalam
mula sa oras na ang obligee ay judicially o
extra judicially na hiningi na maisagawa o
maihatid ang bagay na ito.
Ngunit, ang paghingi o pag demand ng
obligee o ng nagpautang ay hindi
kinakailangan upang masabi na mayroon
nang balam sa mga sitwasyon na ito:
Kapag nakasaad ito sa obligasyon o sa
batas.
Kapag ayon sa kallikasan ng obligasyon na
ang pag tatakda ng oras ay ang nag
cocontrol na motibo ng pagtatala ng
kontrata.
Kapag ang demand o paghingi ay walang
bisa. Katulad ng pagkakataon na
naisakatuparan na ng obligor ang bagay na
ito ng higit pa sa kakayahan nyang
maikumpleto o maisakatuparan ito.
Sa reciprocal obligations, wala sa sino
mang piging ay mababalam kung ang isa ay
hindi isasakatuparan o hindi handa na
isagawa ang bagay na ito sa tamang
paraan. Kapag nagawa na ng isang piging
ang kanyang obligasyon, ang balam ng isa
ay magsisimula.
Case: Julio de la Rosa v. The Bank of the
Philippine Islands (51 PHIL. 926),
Nov. 28, 1924
FACTS PETITIONER-APPELLEE: Julio de la
Rosa
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: The Bank of the
Philippine Islands
PONENTE: Romualdez, J.
On June 11, 1923, a complaint was filed by
Julio de la Rosa on the ground that the
defendant bank started a contest of
designs and plans for the construction of a
building, and announced that prizes would
be awarded no later than November 30,
1921.
De la Rosa, the plaintiff, claimed that he
joined the said contest and performed
work and incurred expenses for that
purpose. Also, the said bank did not name
the contest judges and failed to ward the
prizes in accordance to the contest
conditions stipulated. Because of this, the
plaintiff prays that judgment be rendered
in his favor for the sum of Php 30,000 as
damages, with interests and costs.
The trial court ruled in favor of de la Rosa,
ordering BPI to pay the plaintiff an
indemnity of Php 4,000 and the costs.
Both parties appealed from this judgment,
the plaintiff argued that the trial court
erred:
1. In holding that the sum of P4,000 was a
just and reasonable indemnity to the
plaintiff.
2. In not ordering the defendant bank to
pay the P30,000 prayed for in the
complaint.
The defendant bank, in turn, assigned the
following errors as committed by the trial
court:
1. In holding that the date set for the
award of prizes is essential in the contract.
2. In ordering that the sum of P4,000 be
paid to the plaintiff.
ISSUE/S Whether the defendant bank
was in default in not awarding the prizes
on November 30, 1921
LAWS Article 1100 (The Civil Code of
the Philippines): Persons obliged to deliver
or to do something are in default from the
moment the creditor demands of them
judicially or extrajudicially the fulfillment
of their obligation.
Nevertheless, the demand of the creditor
shall not be necessary in order that the
default may arise
1. When the obligator or the law expressly
so provides;
2. When by reason of the nature and
circumstances of the obligation it shall
appear that the designation of the time at
which the thing was to be delivered or the
service rendered was the principal
inducement to the creation of the
obligation.
In reciprocal obligations neither of the
obligators shall be in default if the other
does not fulfill or does not submit to the
fulfillment of that which is incumbent
upon him. From the time on the obliges
performs his obligation the default begins
for the other party.
Article 1169 (The New Civil Code of the
Philippines): Those obliged to deliver or to
do something incur in delay from the time
the obligee judicially or extrajudicially
demands from them the fulfillment of their
obligation.
However, the demand by the creditor shall
not be necessary in order that delay may
exist:
(1) When the obligation or the law
expressly so declare; or
(2) When from the nature and the
circumstances of the obligation it appears
that the designation of the time when the
thing is to be delivered or the service is to
be rendered was a controlling motive for
the establishment of the contract; or
(3) When demand would be useless, as
when the obligor has rendered it beyond
his power to perform.
In reciprocal obligations, neither party
incurs in delay if the other does not
comply or is not ready to comply in a
proper manner with what is incumbent
upon him. From the moment one of the
parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the
other begins. (1100a)
HOLDINGS No. The defendant
bank cannot be held to have been in
default through the mere lapse of time.
For this judicial or extrajudicial demand
was necessary for the performance of the
obligation, and it was not alleged here, nor
does it appear that before bringing this
action the plaintiff had ever demanded it
from the defendant bank in any manner
whatsoever. The defendant bank,
therefore, was not in default.
The plaintiff invoked paragraph 2 of Article
1100 of the Civil Code and contended that
November 30, 1921 was the principal
inducement because of the current cost of
concrete buildings at the time was fixed.
The fixation of said price cannot be
considered as the controlling factor of
setting the date of the awarding of
prizes/contract but just for the uniformity
of the designs to be presented and to
secure greater justice in the appreciation
of relative merits of each work submitted.
Since the date was not a controlling motive
for the establishment of the contract, the
plaintiff cannot invoke the exception on
Article 1100 of the Civil Code. Thus, a
judicial or extrajudicial demand was
necessary for the performance of the
obligation, and in this case was not done
by de la Rosa.
The plaintiff had no cause of action; the
judgment was reversed.
Discussion
TERMS:
The Kind of Delay Applicable to Article
1169 is Legal Delay or Default (Mora) and
not ordinary delay.
Extra-judicial- Done outside of court
(sending of demand letter by creditor or by
his lawyer
Judicial done by filing of a formal
complaint in court
Article 1169 discusses that as a GENERAL
RULE, a judicial and extra-judicial demand
by the creditor signals the delay to deliver
something by the debtor.

The exceptions to the rule are also listed in
Art. 1169: Demand may not be necessary
in the following circumstances:
When the obligation or the law expressly
stipulates (example: a newborn should
have its Fact of Birth registered
immediately, otherwise, penalty will be
imposed for its late registration
From the nature and circumstances of the
obligation When the choosing of the time
of delivery of the obligation is the
controlling factor for the creation of the
contract or the obligation. (example: when
there is an obligation to build a convention
hall as the site of an international event
that will be help on a specific date. Time is
of the essence)
When the demand would be useless
(example: When on performs the
prestation impossible of performance (like
an impossible crime) as the very thing to
be delivered has already been destroyed)
When the debtor admits he is in default
(No need to further demand to put the
debtor in default)
However: Asking for an extension is not
indicative of acknowledging default.
In reciprocal obligations, neither party
incurs default when the other does not
comply in a proper manner required of
him (when one fulfills his obligation, delay
by the other begins)
***Without DEMAND, the effects of
default shall not arise***
Example: One cannot be ordered to vacate
a leased property for non-payment of dues
when the lessors collector fails to collect
the same (when there is no agreement on
place of payment, collection must be made
in the domicile of the lessee)
EFFECT of LACK OF DEMAND
When there is NO DATE fixed for delivery,
time is NOT considered essential. In this
case, delivery must be done within a
reasonable timeframe to be fixed by the
court based on the circumstances of the
case.
When the TIME is fixed for the fulfillment
of the obligation, no further demand or
notice by the obligee or creditor is needed.
In case of DOUBT on whether a debtor is in
default of his obligation, the doubt shall be
resolved in the debtors favor because
dispensing the required demand is just an
exception to the general rule.
Classes of MORA
Mora Solvendi default on the part of the
debtor/obligor
Requisites:
Obligation pertains to the debtor/obligor
Obligation is determinate (susceptible of
particular designation) or liquidated; due
and demandable
Obligation has not been performed on its
maturity date
***It is not enough to fix a period in the
contract, demand is still needed to put the
debtor in default.
Does not apply on:
Natural obligations being based on
equity and natural law, do not grant a right
of action to enforce their performance
Negative obligations a person cannot be
tardy in not doing something that is
prohibited
Effects:
Ex Re: Default in Real Obligations
Ex Persona: Default in Personal Obligations
Debtor may be liable for interests and
damages
Debtor may bear the risk of loss of things,
even if the loss is due to a fortuitous event
(1165) subject to equitable mitigation if
the loss would transpire even if there was
no default on the part of the debtor
Mora Accipiendi default on the part of
the creditor or obligee; when the obligee
unjustifiably refuses to accept payment or
performance at the time the obligation is
due. If the refusal is justified such as when
the payment given is not that of what has
been stipulated upon, there is no Mora
Accipiendi.
Effects:
Obligation arising from a crime (delicto),
culprit is liable for the loss of the thing
even if its loss of the subject of the crime
was due to a fortuitous event, unless the
creditor is guilty of Mora Accipiendi.
Obligee is barred from recovering for
damages from the culprit if there was
mora accipiendi.
The refusal of lessors to accept current
rentals without just cause makes them
shoulder the subsequent accidental loss of
the leased premises. The default incurred
by the lessors was NOT cured by the failure
of the lessee to consign the rejected
payments
Compensation Morae default on the part
of both debtor/obligor and the
creditor/obligee which arises in reciprocal
obligations. The effect is the default of one
party neutralizes the default of the other.
Parties are both guilty of mutual default.
Their respective liabilities shall be offset
equitably. When one party does not fulfill,
he releases the other from his obligations
and does not become delinquent in the
fulfillment of his prestation.
Article 1170
NOVEMBER 27, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Sa mga nagsasagawa ng kanilang
obligasyon na may kasalanan ng fraud,
nagligence, o delay o balam at sa mga
nagsasagawa ng kanilang obligasyon na
hindi ayon sa napagkasunduan ay
mananagot sa mga danyos.
Article 1171
NOVEMBER 26, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Ang mga responsibilidad na sumisibol mula
sa fraud ay kailangan masagawa sa lahat
ng obligasyon. Kahit anong waiver ng pag
gawa nito sa kakaharapin na fraud ay
walang bisa.
CASE DIGEST BY BONG REYES
Pamintuan v. CA (G. R. No. L-26339),
December 14, 1979
FACTS:
This is about the recovery compensatory,
damages of breach of a contract of sale in
addition to the liquidated damages.
Pamintuan and Yu Ping Kun were business
partners. Pamintuan was a license barter
who export corn flakes to Japan in
exchange of plastic sheetings. Yu Ping Kun
complains in violation of their contract
because although plastic sheetings were
delivered on the proper time and place.
The quality of materials and overpricing
the same violates their agreement.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Pamintuan is guilty of
fraud?
HELD:
Yes. Pamintuan is guilty of fraud because
he change the manner of paying that
resulted to overpricing, he controlled
disposal of goods in the warehouse and
manipulated receipts. There is no
justification for the Civil Code to make an
apparent distinction between penalty and
liquidated damages because the settled
rule is that there is no difference between
penalty and liquidated damages insofar as
legal results are concerned and that either
maybe recovered without the necessary of
proving actual damages and both maybe
reduced when proper. The CA ordered him
to deliver to Yu Ping Kun plastic sheetings
if he could not do so, to pay P100 559.28
as damages with 6% interest. With the
modification of the judgment the CA is
affirmed with all respects. No cost in this
instance.
Article 1172
NOVEMBER 25, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Ang mga responsibilidad na sumisibol mula
sa negligence ng pagsasakatuparan ng
lahat ng klase ng obligasyon ay kailangan
maisagawa o maisakatuparan, ngunit ang
tulad na liabilidad na ito ay maaring mai-
regula ng korte na ayon sa mga pangyayari.
Article 1173
NOVEMBER 24, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Ang fault of negligence ng obligor ay
magbabangkas ng hindi pagsasagawa ng
sipag na kailangan isagawa sa kalikasan ng
obligasyon at umaayon sa mga kalagayan
ng mga tao, ng oras at ng lugar. Kung ang
negligence ay nagpapakita ng hindi
mabuting tangka , ang mga probisyon ng
Article 1171 at 2201, ika pangalawang
talataan, ang masusunod.
Kung hindi nasasaad sa batas o kontrata
ang klase ng sipag na kailangan maisagawa
sa pagsasakatuparan ng obligasyon, iyong
sipag na inaasahan sa mabuting padre de
pamilya ang kailangang isagawa.
Article 1174
NOVEMBER 23, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Maliban sa mga kaso o pangyayari na
isinaad sa batas, o naisulat sa stipulasyon,
o ang kalikasan ng obligasyon ay
nangangailangan assumption of risk,
walang tao ang magiging responsable sa sa
ganitong mga pagkakataon na hindi
inaasahan, o kung inaasahan man ay hindi
maiiwasan.
Case: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro v.
Gregorio de la Pea (26 PHIL. 144), Nov.
21, 1913
FACTS PETITIONER-APPELLEE: The
Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: Gregorio de la
Pea (administrator of the estate of Father
Agustin de la Pea
PONENTE: Moreland, J.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro brought
action against the appellant, Gregorio de la
Pea, who was the administrator of the
property of the deceased Fr. Agustin de la
Pea (deceased- 1900), to recover the sum
of P6,641 (Mexican currency) in the Court
of First Instance in Iloilo.
The amount of money in question, was
collected by the deceased priest, as an
authorized representative to collect fees
for the construction of a leper hospital.
The appellee was a trustee of such
charitable bequest. The same amount was
deposited, along with Fr. de la Peas
personal funds, in the Hong Kong and
Shanghai Bank of Iloilo.
During the war of the revolution, Fr. de la
Pea was arrested by the military
authorities as a political prisoner. His bank
funds were confiscated as the military
authorities thought that the funds were for
revolutionary purposes.
The CFI of Iloilo awarded the plaintiff
P6,641 with interest at the legal rate from
the beginning of action, thus this appeal.
ISSUE/S Whether Father de la Pea is
liable for the loss of the bequest money by
placing it in his personal bank account?
LAWS Article 1094 (The Civil Code of
the Philippines): A person obliged to give
something is also bound to preserve it with
the diligence pertaining to a good father of
a family.
Article 1163 (The New Civil Code of the
Philippines): Every person obliged to give
something is also obliged to take care of it
with the proper diligence of a good father
of a family, unless the law or the
stipulation of the parties requires another
standard of care. (1094a)
Article 1105 (The Civil Code of the
Philippines): No one shall be liable for
events which could not be foreseen, or
which having been foreseen were
inevitable,
with the exception of the cases expressly
mentioned in the law or those in which the
obligation so declares
Article 1174 (The New Civil Code of the
Philippines): Except in cases expressly
specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when
the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could
not be foreseen, or which, though
foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)
HOLDINGS No. Fr. de la Pea and
his trustee (or estate administrator),
Gregorio de la Pea is not liable for the
loss of the bequest money.
Fr. de la Peas liability is determined by
portions in the Civil Code that relate to
obligations (Book 4, Title 1.) and the New
Civil Code (Book 4, Title 1.)
Although Article 1094 of the Civil Code,
now, Article 1163 (The New Civil Code)
discusses that a person obliged to give
something is also bound to preserve it with
the diligence pertaining to a good father of
a family, it also states that no one shall
be liable for events which could not be
foreseen, or which having been
foreseen were inevitable, with the
exception of the cases expressly
mentioned in the law or those in which the
obligation so declares (Article 1105, the
Civil Code and Article 1174, The New Civil
Code).
The precise question is not about
negligence as we cannot measure nor say
if Fr. de la Pea was indeed negligent by
depositing the donated funds in his bank.
We cannot also do the same if he just left
the funds in his home or if he deposited
the amount in a separate account as a
trustee. No law prohibited him from
depositing the amount as he did and no
law changed his responsibility because of
that act. While one who is under obligation
to give a thing is obliged, when he foresees
events which may be dangerous to his
trust, to exhaust all means and measures
to elude or, if unavoidable, to mitigate the
effects of those events, the Supreme Court
held that in choosing between two means
equally legal, with two possible same
repercussions, making him negligent in
selecting either, Fr. de la Pea was not
responsible for the loss of the amount in
question.
The judgment was reversed.
Article 1175
NOVEMBER 22, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Ang mga usurious na transaksyon ay
masasaklawan o pamumunuan ng mga
espesyal na batas.
Case Digest
Case: Bulos Jr. v Yasuma (527 SCRA 727);
October 17, 1952
FACTS PETITIONER:
HONORIO C. BULOS, JR
RESPONDENT: KOJI YASUMA
PONENTE: Chico-Nasario
In 1988, Bulos, Atty. Tabalingcos and Dr.
Lim incurred a P2.5M loan from Yasuma, a
Japanese national. The terms of the loan
provide that it is payable in 3 months at 4%
interest rate; that in case of nonpayment,
it shall continue at that rate until paid
(48% per annum). And in case of litigation,
plus 10% of principal balance for attys
fees (no less than P10,000). Dr. Lim signed
the promissory note in behalf of the others
as agreed upon. Each of them mortgaged
their respective properties in favor of
Yasuma.
The three failed to pay upon maturity in
1989. Loan then was already at P2.7M.
Yasuma foreclosed the mortgaged
properties. The sale amounted to P1.6M
leaving a balance of P1.06M. Interest also
accrued and other penalties ballooning the
balance to P2.4M.
Yasuma won a subsequent collection suit
filed at the RTC of Makati City in 1996 in
which he was a defendant on along with
Bede Tabalingcos. Bulos appealed. The
Court of Appeals, in 2004, denied the
motion for reconsideration and affirmed
the lower courts decision. It ruled that
Yasuma is entitled to the 20% principal
balance for attys fees as per contract. The
CA however reduced the interest rate to
21% per annum, thus this SC case with the
petitioners prayer that the CA and RTC
decision be declared null and void under
Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure with a petition for review on
Certiorari
In the main, Bulos claims that his
obligation was extinguished when his
property was foreclosed via dacion en
pago and when he offered his shares of
stock in the Rural Bank of Paranaque to
Yasuma.
ISSUE/S Whether or not Bulos is correct
in claiming that his obligation to pay
Yasuma has been fully extinguished.
LAWS Article 1175.
Usurious transactions shall be governed by
special laws. (n)
HOLDINGS No. The dacion en pago
merely paid off a portion of the loan.
Second, Yasuma is a foreign national and is
banned by law to be shareholder in a rural
bank (RA 7353).
The additional penalty of paying an
additional 20% for Attys fees is valid for it
was agreed upon in the promissory note.
The parties are bound by it.
The 48% per annum interest rate is
excessive as well as the reduced amount of
21% per annum. Though the ceiling of
interest rate has been removed by CB
Circular 905, in no way shall interest rates
be excessive as to enslave borrowers.
Interest rates of 3% per month or higher is
already excessive. Hence, the interest is
reduced to the legal rate which is at 12%
per annum.
Instant petition was partially granted.
Interest rate modified and applied to the
balance of Php 2,240,000 computed from
the date of judicial demand.
Discussion
TERMS:
Usury: The act of lending money at an
interest rate that is considered
unreasonably high or that is higher than
the rate permitted by law; Crime of
charging higher interest on loan that the
law permits
Carte blanche: Unconditional authority;
full discretionary power

Unconscionable: Unreasonable; Not Right;
Excessive
Iniquitous: Grossly unfair; Morally wrong
Dacion de Pago: is a Spanish term that
means the giving back of the property
mortgaged to the lender in exchange for
the discharge of a mortgage debt.
Article 1175: Usurious transactions shall be
governed by special laws (A new provision)
Article has been declared legally
ineffective by Resolution no. 224 (Dec. 3,
1982) of the Monetary Board of the
Central Bank and later by the Central Bank
Circular No. 905 which took effect on 1,
1983 and removed the ceiling on interest
rates for secured and unsecured loans
regardless of maturity.
The virtual repeal of the law is within the
range of judicial notice that the courts are
bound to take into account: fundamental
tenet is that the law is deemed part of the
contract.
Law is legally inexistent Interest can now
be charged as lender and borrower may
agree upon
***UNCONSCIONABLE INTERESTS are
REDUCIBLE under Article 21, New Civil
Code for being CONTRARY TO MORALS:
Article 21: Any person who willfully causes
loss or injury to another in manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.
***CB Circular No. 905 DOES NOT grant
Money Lenders Carte Blanche Authority to
Raise Interest at any level nothing in the
Circular grants lenders carte blanche
authority to interest rates to levels which
will either enslave their borrowers or lead
to a hemorrhaging of their assets.
Allowing high interest rates to thrive is
tantamount to obstructing the economic
recovery of the country: debtors are
unable to pay loan sharks and lose their
properties used as collaterals.
Banks which foreclosed properties find
those properties as dead assets as they do
not generate funds;
small entrepreneurs are discouraged from
getting loans to establish businesses as
they are afraid of the staggering interest
rates.
Stunts the economic growth of the country
***UNILATERAL INCREASE of Interest by
Lender, NOT allowed increases of
interest rates unilaterally imposed by a
bank without petitioners consent/assent
are violative of mutuality of contracts
ordained in Article 1308.
***CASE where AMOUNTS of Interest are
found UNCONSCIONABLE and INIQUITOUS
Article 1176
NOVEMBER 21, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Ang pagtanggap ng nautangan ng halaga
na inutang ng walang patumanggi ay
magbibigay sibol sa pag aakala na ang
interest nito ay nabayaran na.
Ang pagtanggap ng installment na
babayaran dapat sa kakaharapin para sa
utang, ng walang patumanggi para sa mga
nakaraan na installments ay magbibigay
sibol sa sa pag aakala na ang mga
installment na ito ay nabayaran na.
CASE DIGEST BY BONG REYES
Case: PNB v. Pedro Relativo (G. R. No. L-
5298),
October 29, 1952
FACTS
PETITIONER: Philippine National Bank
RESPONDENT: Pedro Relativo
PONENTE: Paras C.J.
This is a suit by the bank for collection.
Pedro C. Relativo owed the Philippine
National Bank the sum of P600 for which
he executed a promissory note. The tender
payment of the loan out of check was
dishonored by Naga Agency and, however,
honored and cashed by the Legaspi
Branch.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the tender of payment in
check resulted in the discharge of the
obligation?
LAWS
Article 1176 provides that after a valid
tender of payment the debtor shall be
release from the responsibility by the
consignation of the thing or sum due.
HOLDINGS No, because the tender
of payment was conditional. Under the
civil code, a tender of payment, to be valid
must be unconditional. The bank in this
case had some reasons to reject the
condition because of the financial risk it
takes in making the payment in connection
with its genuineness, identity of payee and
other infirmities they expected to foresee.
The effect of valid tender of payment is
merely to exempt the debtor from
payment of interest and other damages.
Tender of payment even if valid, does not
by itself produce legal payment, unless it is
completed by consignation. The judgment
of the CFI of Camarines Sur was affirmed,
requiring the defendant-appellant to pay
the debt with interest.
Article 1177
NOVEMBER 20, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Ang mga nagpautang na kumuha na ng
mga propriedad ng mga may utang para
makumpleto ang kanilang mga bayarin ay
maaring isakatuparan ang kanilang mga
karapatan at dalahin ang mga aksyon ng
may utang para sa pagkumpleto ng mga
bayarin na ito, maliban sa mga pagaari ng
may utang na likas sa kanyang pagkatao.
Maari din na idagdag o isalangsang ng
nagpautang ang mga aksyon ng umutang
para dayain sila.
Article 1178
NOVEMBER 19, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-
FATHI
Saklaw ng mga batas, ang mga karapatan
na nakuha o sumibol mula sa obligasyon ay
pwedeng mailipat kung walang naisaad na
stipulasyon na salungat nito.
Article 1179
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA
Bawat obligasyon na kung saan ang
pagganap nito ay hindi nakasalalay sa isang
kaganapan sa hinaharap o hindi tiyak na
pangyayari, o sa isang nakaraang
kaganapan na hindi alam ng mga partido,
ay kailangan gawin kaagad.
Bawat obligasyon na naglalaman ng isang
resolutory kundisyon ay dapat ding
magawa kaagad, nang walang pagkiling sa
mga epekto ng mga nangyayari sa mga
kaganapan.
Article 1180
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA
Kapag ang may utang ay ibinigkis kanyang
sarili upang bayaran ang kanyang pag
kakautang kapag ang kanyang
pamamaraan/kakayahan ay
pinahihintulutan siya upang gawin ito, ang
obligasyon ay itinuturing bilang isa na may
takdang panahon, na napapailalim sa mga
probisyon ng Article1197
Illustrative case digest by Allan Pailan
February 1, 1911
Levy Hermanos plaintiffs-appelles
vs.
Pedro Paterno -Defendant- Appellant
FACTS:
a.) The defendant vale for the sum of
P6,77.35 in favor of Mssr. levy brothers as
the balance of account with them to date,
payable in partial payments(March 28,
1906).
b.) The unfixed rate made payments by the
defendant caused the plaintiff suit against
the defendant to pay the apelles the sum
of P5,862.35, -the unpaid balance be paid
on the specific period.
c.)During the trial, it was agreed by the
parties the sum which the defendant owed
the plaintiff on March 28, 1906 as
P5,317.35.
d.) The trial court sentenced the defendant
to pay the plaintiffs reasonable compliance
with the agreement to pay in monthly
payment of P200 on or before the 15th
day of each month. this judgment
appealed by the defendant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not that the trial court sought
no abuse of judicial discretion in fixing
such a rate.
HELD:
No, the trial court, therefore acted in
accordance with the law in exercising the
said power in the present case by fixing
the duration period on the basis that the
payment of debt should be made at the
rate of P200 a month, considering the
importance of obligation and the absence
of any stipulation of interest in favor of the
creditors.
The supreme court affirmed the judgment
of trial court.
Article 1181
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA
Sa conditional obligation, ang pagtatamo
ng karapatan, pati na rin ang pagtapos o
kawalan ng mga natamo na, ay nakasalalay
sa mga pangyayari ng mga kaganapan na
bumubuo ng kundisyon.
Article 1182
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA
Kapag ang katuparan ng kondisyon ay
nakasalalay sa kusang loob ng may utang,
ang conditional obligation ay wala ng bisa.
Kung ito ay depende sa pagkakataon o sa
kagustuhan ng isang ikatlong tao, ang
obligasyon ay dapat magkabisa sa
pagsunod sa mga probisyon ng Code na
ito.
Article 1183
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA
Ang mga imposibleng kondisyon, na labag
sa magandang kaugalian o patakarang
pampubliko at mga ipinagbabawal ng
batas ay dapat ipawalang-bisa ang
obligasyon na nakasalalay sa kanila. Kung
ang obligasyon ay maaaring hatiin, ang
bahagi nito na hindi apektado ng mga
imposible o labag sa batas na kondisyon ay
dapat na may-bisa.
Ang kondisyon na hindi gumawa ng isang
imposibleng bagay ay itinuturing na hindi
napagkasunduan.
DISCUSSION BY BONG REYES
All conditions that are impossible and not
true can annuls not only the condition
itself but the whole contract. Things that
cannot be done was considered not agreed
upon.
Examples of impossible conditions are:
1. I will give you money as a loan if its
snow in the Philippines.
2. I will give you the company if you drink
water in the Pasig river until it runs dry.
Examples of impossible conditions
contrary to good morals and customs.
1. I will give you parcel of land if you could
kill Cathy in 24 hours.
2. I will give you parcel of land if you will
leave Marian and live instead with
Antonette.
Article 1184
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA
Ang kondisyon na may nangyaring
kaganapan sa isang tukoy na oras ay dapat
pagtatapos na ng obligasyon lalo na kapag
natapos na ang oras o kung ito siguradong
hindi mangyayari.
Article 1185
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA
Ang kondisyon na ang ilang mga
kaganapan ay hindi mangyayari sa isang
tukoy na oras ay dapat maging sanhi upang
maging epektibo ang obligasyon mula sa
sandali na ang oras na nakasaad ay
lumipas, o kung ito ay naging malinaw na
ang kaganapan ay hindi maaaring
mangyari.
Kung walang oras na nakasaad, ang
kundisyon ay dapat itinuturing na natupad
sa naturang oras bilang maaaring/marahil
ay napagisipan, laging tatandaan ang
katangian ng obligasyon.
Article 1186
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA
Ang kundisyon ay dapat itinuturing na
naisakatuparan na kapag ang nagpautang
ay kusang-loob na pumipigil sa katuparan
nito.
Illustrative case by Allan Pailan
M.D. Taylor (Plaintiff-Appelant)
October 2, 1922
vs.
Uy Tieng Piao & Tan Liuan (Defendant-
Appellant)
FACTS:
On December 12, 1918, the plaintiff
contracted his services to Tan Liuan & Co.,
as superintendent of an oil factory which
the latter establishing in this city. The
period of the contract extended over two
years from the date mentioned and the
salary drate salary rate of P600 per month
during 1st year and P700 per month during
the second year, with electric light and
water for domestic consumption and a
residence to live or in leu thereof of 60 per
month at the time.
At the time this agreement was made, the
machinery for the factory had not been
acquired, though ten expellers had been
ordered from the U.S. as agreed, for any
reason the machinery failed to arrived in
the city of Manila for the period of six
months from the date given, the contract
may be canceled by the party of the
second part.
The machinery stated in the contract did
not arrive in the city of manila within the
six month after the making of the contract,
and other equipment necessary for the
factory. June 28,1919, the defendants
informed the plaintiff that they had
decided to rescind the contract effective
June 30th. The plaintiff instituted the
action to recover damages in the amount
of P13,000.00 covering salary and
perquisite under the contract.
ISSUE:
Whether or not that the plaintiff-appellant
may demand perquisites under the
rescinded contract.
HELD:
Yes, it has been concluded that the Court
of First Instance committed no error in
rejecting the plaintiff claim in so far as
damages are sought for the period
subsequent to the expiration of the first six
months, but in the assessment of damages
due for six months period, the trial judge
evidently overlooked the item of P60
specified in the plaintiff fourth assignment
of error, which represent commutation of
house rental for the month of June 1919.
this amount the plaintiff is clearly entitled
to recover, in addition to the P300
awarded in the lower court.
The judgment of CFI is modified, the
defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of
P360 instead of P300 as allowed by the
lower court.
Article 1187
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang apekto ng isang maykondisyon
obligasyon magbigay, kapag kondisyon ay
naisakatuparan na ay magkakabisa mula sa
araw kung saan ang obligasyon nagsimula.
Ganun paman, kung ang obligasyon
nagpapataw ng palitang pagbabayad
sapagitan nila, ang mga bunga at tubo sa
panahon umiiral ang kudisyon ay
maituturing na kapwa ay nagbayad na,
kapag ang obligasyon ay para lang sa iisan
ang maypagkakautang ay ilalaan ang mga
bunga at mga tubo natanggap, maliban
mula sa natural na kaganapan ng
obigasyon iyon ay maipagpapalagay na ang
pakay ng taong maykagagawan ng ganuon
ay iba.
Sa obligasyon na gumawa at ng hindi pag
gawa, ang hukoman ang magpapasiya ng
bawat pangyayari, ang pagkabisang pabalik
ng kundisyon ay natupad na
Dion discussion
Article 1188
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang nagpapautang ay maari, mbago
matupad ang kundisyon, ay gumawa ng
nauukol na hakbangin upang mapanatili
ang kanyang karapatan.
Jacinto v De Leon 51 Phil. 992
CASE DIGEST BY BONG REYES
JACINTO VS. DE LEON, 51 PHIL.992
FACTS:
This action was made to court for damages
and none fulfillment of the obligation
agreed upon by the defendant under oath.
The purchaser of the property in the public
auction sold by the defendant was
presumed to be a property of
Carpenter.The defendant Conrado de Leon
as Sheriff of the province of Rizal
guaranteed the liability and interest for the
present action.
He appealled from this decision of the
lower court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not according to stipulation of
facts, plaintiff had a right to require sheriff
to retain the proceeds of sale to judgment
of Carpenter?
HELD:
The plaintiff have no right for the retention
which he asked because debt was based
on the claim which is not due and payable.
And that the Sheriff is not bound to retain
the proceeds requested nor it was not his
duty to grant any claim. Defendant
absolved in the complaint.

Article 1189
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Kung ang kasunduan ay naIpatupad na,at
may layunin na ipagpaliban ang
pananagutan nang pagbigay, ang mga
sumusunod na patakaran ay dapat
ipatupad kong may pag unlad, pagkawala o
pag kupas o pagbaba ng halaga sa panahon
na ang mga kundisyon ay suspendido pa;
Kung ang bagay ay mawala na walang
kasalanan ang may utang ang pananagutan
ay mawawala din.
Kung ang pagkawala ng bagay ay kasalanan
ng may utang, mananagot siya magbayad
ng danyos at ipagpapalagay ang gayon
bagay ay hindi na muling mababawi pa.
Kung ang bagay ay kumupas o sumama na,
ang may utang ay walang kasalanan, ang
pagpapagawa o pagbabalik ng dating
kaanyoan ay sa sagutin ng nagpapautang.
Kung ang pagkupas o pagbaba ng halaga ay
kagagawan o kasalanan ng may
pagkakautang ang nagpapautang ay
magpapasiya upang pawalan
saysay/kansilahin ang obligasyon at
pagsasakatuparan noon na may kabayaran
sa danyos alin man sa dalawa ang pipiliin
nya.
Kung ang bagay ay umunlad ng natural o
ng panahon, ang kaunlaran ay sa
pakinabang ng nagpapautang.
Kung ang pagunlad ay kagagawan ng may
utang wala siyang karapatan maliban sa
karapatan ipinagkaloob ng usufructuary o
sa frutas or prodokto ng bagay mismo
pagaari ng ibang tao..
Pahinuhod/Babala: ang mga nasabing
pagkawala ay, pagkawala
physical,pagkawala legal at pagkawala na
civil.
Article 1190
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Kapang ang kundisyon ay maylayunin na
mawala ang obligasyon magbigay, ang mga
nagkasundo, sa oras na nagawa na ang
mga napag-usapan kundisyon, ay mag
sasauli sa isat-isa anu man ang natanggap
nila.
Sa pagkakataon may mawala kumupas o
gumanda ang bagay ang probisyon kung
saan, ang mangungutang, ay itinakda na sa
mga naunang artikulo ang susundin ng sino
mang partido na dapat mag sauli.
Ayon naman sa obligasyon gumawa o hindi
gumawa, ang probisyon ng ikalawang
saknong ng artikulong 1187 ang siyang
dapat masunod tungkol sa apikto ng
pagkawala ng obligasyon.
Pag puna: walang kasong halimbawa.
Ang artikulong ito ay magagamit sa mga
usapan may resolutory at suspensive na
considerasyon;
Resoluroty, ay kundisyon kung saan ang
usapan ay magkakabisa lamang sa oras na
mangyari na ang kundisyon itinalaga
upang tuparin na ang napag-usapan.
Halimbawa ibibigay ko kay pastor ang
aking inahing baka kapag hindi siya umalis
ng bansa sa loob ng tatlong taon,
pagkaraan ng dalawang taon si pastor ay
nangibang bansa, dapat niyang isauli ang
inahin kasama ang kanyang guya.
Suspensive, ay kudisyon kung saan na sa
oras na ang itinakdang kundisyon ay
magyari na saka pa lamang ang kasunduan
magkakabisa. Halimbawa, habang dalaga
ka Ining susuportahan kita sa pang araw-
araw mong kailngan
di nagtagal si Ining nag asawa, ang
pangkong suporta ay mawawa na.
Article 1191
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang kapangyarihan na pawalan bisa ang
obligasyon ay tuwiran sa isang palitan
obligasyon, sa pangyayaring isa sa may
mga pananagutan ang hindi tumupad kung
anu ang nararapat gawin niya.
Ang naapi ay pipili sa pagitan ng
pagsasakatuparan o . ipawalang saysay ang
obligasyon na mayroon kabayaran ang mga
damyos alin man sa dalawa. Maari rin
niyang hilingin ikansila, pagkatapos niyang
magpasiya ng pagsasakatuparan, kung ang
huli ay magiging imposibli na.
Ang hukuman ay mag uutos para sa
pagkansila ng hinihingi, maliban kung
mayroon makatarungan paguutos sa pag
tatakda ng titiyak panahon.
Ito ay nauunawaan na walang
makakasama sa mga karapatan ng taong
walang kinalaman na siyang naka kuha ng
pagmamay-ari ng bagay, sang-ayon sa
atikulonh 1385 at 1388 at ang batas sa
pagsasangla.
Article 1192
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Kapag ang parehong partido ay nagkasala
sa hindi pagtupad sa anumang obligasyon,
ang pananagutan ng unang lumabag ang
mabibigyan ng karampatang kahatulan ng
hukuman . Ngunit kung hindi matiyak kung
sinu sa mga partido ang hindi sumusunod
o tumupad sa kontrata ay parehong hindi
makakatanggap ng anu mang
kapakinabangan at parehong managit sa
kanilang pagkakamali.
Illustrative case by Allan Pailan
October 3, 1985
Central Bank of the Phil. & acting Dircetor
Artemio T. Castro jr. of the Dept. of
commercial & savings bank, in his capacity
as statutory reciever of island savings
bank- petitioner
vs.
C.A. & Supicio M. Tolentino respondent
FACTS:
a.) April 28, 1965 Island savings bank
approved the loan application for
P80,00.00 of Sulpicio Tolentino executed
on the same day a real estate mortgage
over his 100-hectare and located in cubao,
Las Nievas, Agusan. The loan amouny is
payable in semi annual installment for a
period of 3 years with 12% annual interest.
b.) May 22, 1965 a mere P17,000 of
P80,000 loan was made by the bank.
Sulpico Tolentino and his wife signed a
promissory note for P17,000 at 12% annual
interest and on July 23, 1965 have been
informed by the bank that there was no
fund yet available for the release of the
P63,000 and promised it repeated by vice -
president and treasurer.
c.) August 13, 1965, Monetary Board of
central bank was suffering liquidity
problems, issued reso. no1049.
d.) August 1, 1968, Island Savings Bank due
to non payment of P17,000 covered by
promissory note , filed an application for
extra judicial foreclosure of the real estate
mortgage covering the 60-hectare land of
Sulpicio Tolentino.
e.) January 20, 1969 Sulpicio Tolentino
filed a petition with CFI of Agusan for
injunction, that he is entitled to specific
performance by ordering Island Saving
Bank to deliver the P63,000 with interest
of 12% per annum from April 28, 1965 and
if said balance cannot be delivered, to
rescind the real estate mortgage.
f.) January 21, 1969, The trial court issued
a temporary restraining order enjoining
the island savings bank from countinuing
the foreclosure of the mortgage.
g.) February 15,1972, Trial court rendered
its decision ordering the Sulpicio Tolentino
to pay Island Savings Bank in the amount
of P17,000 and legal interest and charges
due, lifting the restraining order for sheriff
may proceed with foreclosure.
h.) Febrary 11, 1977, The CA on appeal by
Sulpicio Tolentino modified the CFI
decision affirming the dismissal of
Tolentinos petition for specific
performance, but it ruled that dismissal of
Tolentinos petition for specific
performance but it ruled that Island
Savings Bank can neither foreclose the real
estate mortgage nor collect the P17,000
loan.
ISSUE:
Whether or not both parties committed a
breach of obligation and they are both
liable for damages.
HELD:
Yes, Since both parties were in default in
the performance of their respective
reciprocal obligations, that is, Island
Savings Bank failed to comply with his
obligation to pay his P17,000 debt within 3
years as stipulated, they are both liable for
damages.
CA decision is modified , Sulficio Tolentino
is ordered to pay the petitioner , and in
case fails to pay, his real estate shall be
foreclose. Real estate mortgage is declared
unenforceable.
Article 1193
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Obligasyon kung saan ang kanyang
katuparan ay itinakda ay maaring hingin
lamang sa tiyak araw ay dumating na.
Obligasyon na mayroon hinihintay na
panahon ay maybisa kaagad, ngunit
mawawala kapag dumating na ang tiyak na
araw na yon. Ang tiyak na araw ay
nauunawaan na iyon ay tiyak na darating
bagamat hindi segurad kung kailan.. Kung
ang kawalan ng katiyakan maging ang
yaong raw ay darating o hindi, ang
obligasyon ay mayroon pasubali, at iyon ay
babatasan ng mga patakaran ng naunang
bahagi.
Case Digest by Ainna Fathi
Case: Ernest Berg v. Magdalena Estate, Inc.
(92 PHIL. 110),
October 17, 1952
FACTS PETITIONER: Ernest Berg
RESPONDENT: Magdalena Estate
PONENTE: Bautista Angelo, J.
Ever since September 22, 1943 plaintiff,
Berg and defendants under Magdalena
Estate, Inc. were co-owners of the
Property, Crystal Arcade. One third of it
belonged to the plaintiff-petitioner and
two thirds, to the defendant-respondent.
These parties executed a deed of sale that
should either of them sell his share, the
other party will have an irrevocable option
to purchase it at the sellers at the sellers
price. The two, eventually had a
disagreement on what really happened
with regard to the deal.
On January. 1946, the petitioner offered
his share for Php 200,000 and was
accepted by the defendant, including the
stipulation that Berg was giving the
defendant a period of time which,
including the extensions granted, would
expire on May 31, 1947.
The defendant claimed that, in spite of the
acceptance of the offer, plaintiff refused to
accept the payment of the price and that
because of this, they suffered damages in
the amount of Php 100,000 and asked for
specific performance. The plaintiff argued
that this transaction, referred to by the
defendant, is not supported by any note or
memorandum subscribed by the parties
and that this transaction falls under the
statue of frauds and cannot be the basis of
the defendants special defense.
In an application to sell or dispose their
properties, both parties filed for separate
applications regarding the subject
property. In the defendants application, it
desired a license in order to use a portion
of the P400,000 requested as a loan from
the National City Bank of New York,
Manila, or from any other bank in Manila,
together with funds to be collected from
old and new sales of his real estate
properties, for the purchase of the one-
third (1/3) of the Crystal Arcade property
in the Escolta, Manila, belonging to Mr.
Ernest Berg.
The lower court found that there was no
agreement reached between the parties
regarding the purchase and sale of the
property in question, it granted the case in
favor of the petitioner.
ISSUE/S Whether the term of payment
stipulated in the defendants application from the National City Bank of New York
for license to sell/purchase, until they
have obtained Php 400,000 from the
National City Bank of New York, or after it
has obtained funds from other sources,is
in line with the Civil Code
LAWS Article 1193. Obligations for
whose fulfillment a day certain has been
fixed, shall be demandable only when that
day comes.
Obligations with a resolutory period take
effect at once, but terminate upon arrival
of the day certain.
A day certain is understood to be that
which must necessarily come, although it
may not be known when.
If the uncertainty consists in whether the
day will come or not, the obligation is
conditional, and it shall be regulated by
the rules of
the preceding Section. (1125a)
HOLDINGS Yes. The term of
payment stipulated in the defendants
application for license to sell/purchase,
until they have obtained Php 400,000
from the National City Bank of New York,
or after it has obtained funds from other
sources,is in line with the Civil Code (Art.
1125).
A day certain is understood to be that
which must necessarily arrive, even though
it is unknown when. In order that an
obligation may be with a term, it is,
therefore, necessary that it should arrive,
sooner or later; otherwise, if its arrival is
uncertain, the obligation is conditional. To
constitute a term, the period must end on
a day certain.
In considering this article as to which the
defendant relies for the enforcement of its
right to buy the property, it would seem
that it is not a term, but a condition.
Considering the first alternative, that is,
until defendant shall have obtained a loan
ibang pangyayari iyon ay maipapakita na
it is clear that the granting of such loans is
not definite and cannot be held to come
within the terms day certain provided for
in the Civil code, for it may or it may not
happen.
The loan did not materialize. And if we
consider that the period given was until
such time as defendant could raise money
from other sources, we also find it to be
indefinite and contingent and so it is also a
condition and not a term within the
meaning of the law.
Both parties did not put the terms in their
agreement clearly in writing. The lower
courts judgment is affirmed.
Article 1194
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Sa oras ng pagkawala, pagkupas o pag
unlad ng bagay bago dumating and tiyak
na araw, ang patakaran sa articulong 1189
ang siyang masusunod.
Article 1195
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ano man naibinigay nakabayaran bago
dumating ang itinakdang panahon, ang
may pagkakautang na hindi alintana ang
nakatakdang panahon o sa kanyanyang
paniniwala na ang kanyang obligasyon ay
dumating na sa itinakdang panahon at
dapat nang singilin , ay maaring bawiin
kasama ang mga bunga at tubo nito.
Paalala wala kaso nababanggit ang
artikulong ito.
Article 1196
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Kung kailan sa isang obligasyon may
panahon na itinalaga iyon ay
ipinagpapalagay na itinakda para sa
pakinabang ng magkapwa ang
nagpapautang at ang nangungutan,
maliban kung kula sa usapan na katulad at
binalak, ang hukuman ang siyang mag
ang panahon ay itinalaga para sa
pakinabang ng isa o sa kabila.
Sng hukuman ang siya rin magtatakda
CASE DIGEST BY BONG REYES
ABESAMIS VS. WOODCRAFT WORKS, INC.
FACTS:
This case was a contract in the delivery of
logs before the end of July 1951 but not
earlier than April of same year as an option
depending on availability of logs and
vessels between Woodcraft Works and
Abesamis Shipping. The failure of the
appellant to send vessels to Dolores,
Samar was because of the storm that
swept away all the log on May 5, 1951.
Under contract the delivery period of date
was accomplished and that have been
agreed to avoid the storm.
Woodcraftworks sued Abesamis to bear all
loss as a result of typhoon
ISSUE:
Whether or not Abesamis is liable to pay of
the loss?
HELD:
As a consequence of typhoon that struck
on May 5 there was yet no delay on the
part of the Abasamis. The obligation
between parties are the reciprocal one,
appellant to furnish the vessel and
appellee to furnish the logs. It was also the
obligation to benefit both parties. The
period that agreed upon are decided to
actually avoid typhoons.The corresponding
loss must be shouldered by the appellee.
Article 1197
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Kapag ang obligasyon ay hindi nagtalaga ng
tiyak na panahon, subalit mula sa kanyang
natural at mga pangyayari iyon ay
maipagpapalagay na ang panahon ay
tatakda ng lawig noon.
nang haba ng panahon kung iyon ay sasang
ayon sa kagustuhan ng may utanag
lamang.
Sa baway pangyayari, ang mga hukuman
ang siyan mag papasiya sa gayong
panahon sa ilalim ng pangyayaring mamari
iyon ang balakin ng mga partido. Kapag
naitalaga na ng hukuman, ang panahon
itinakda ay hini na maari pang baguhin
nila.
Halimbawang kaso ay : Cosmic Lumber Co.
Inc V Manaois (106 Phil. 1015)
Article 1198
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang mangungutang ay mawawalan ng
karapatan gamitin ang panahon sa mga
sumusunod:

1. Kung pagkatapos ng obligasyon ay
napagkasunduan na, siya ay naging dukha,
maliban kung siya ay nagbigay garantiya o
sanla para sa utang niya;
2. kung hindi niya nagbigay sa kanyang
pinagkakautangan ng guaranita o
pangtubos na kanyang ipinangako;
3. Kung sa pamamagitan ng kanyang
kagagawan nawaldas niya ang aknyang
garantiya o pangtubos pagkatapos ng
pagkakaroon noon, at kapag sa
pamamagitan ng hindi inaasahan
kaganapan ng kalikasan naglaho/
nawala, maliban kung kaagad siya ng
kapalit ng isang katulad na bagay;
4. kung ang mayutang lumabag ng
kasunduan/usapan, na kung saan ang
nagpapautang ay sumang-ayon sa
panahon;
5. Kung ang may utang ay nag tangkang
iwasan.
Illustrated Case digest by Allan Pailan
May 16, 1967
Peoples Bank & Trust Co. and atlantic Gulf
& Pacific Co. of Mla- Plaintiff-Appellants
vs.
Dahican Lumber Co., Dahican American
Lumber Corp. & Connell Bros. Co.(Phil.)
Defendants-Apellants
FACTS:
a.) Sept. 8, 1948, Atlantic licensed to do
business in the Philippines sold and
assigned all its rights in Dahican lumber
consession to Dahican Lumber Co. (DALCO)
the total sum of $500,00.00 of which
$50,000.00 was paid to develop the
consession, Dalco obtain various loans
from the bank amounting to $250,000.00
from Export-Import Bank of Washington
D.C..
b.) July 13, 1950, Dalco executed in favor
of the Bank a security for the payment of
the loan a deed of mortgage covering five
parcels of land situated in the province of
Camarines Norte together with the
building and other improvements existing
thereon and all personal properties of the
motgagor located in its place of business in
the municipalities of Mamburao and
Capalonga, Camarines Norte, Dalco
executed a second mortgage in the same
properties in favour of ATLANTIC the sum
of $450,000.
c.) Upon DALCOs & DAMCOs failure to
pay 5th promissory note upon its maturity,
the bank gave them up to April1, 1953 to
pay overdue promissory note.
d.) July 13,1950, the date of execution of
the mortgages mentioned, the BANK
requested DALCO to submit complete lists
of said properties but the latter failed to
do so. In connection with the purchses as
appeared in the book of DALCO as due to
Conell Bros. Com. (Phil)-(acting as
purchasing agent)The sum of P452,860.55
& to DAMCO the sum of P2,151,678.34.
e.) December 16, 1952- The corresponding
agreements of recission of sale were
executed between DALCO & DAMCO and
CONNELL.
f.) January 13, 1953, The bank and that of
ATLANTIC, demanded that said
agreements be cancelled but CONNEL and
DAMCO refused to do so.
g.) February 12, 1953, ATLANTIC & The
bank commenced foreclosure proceedings
in the CFI of Camarines Norte against
DALCO & DAMCO. They filed also an ex
parte application for the appoinment of a
reciever and the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction to restrain DALCO
from removing its properties. The court
granted both remedies and appointed
George H. Evans as reciever but discharged
upon defendants motion on February 21,
1953.
ISSUE:
Whether or not that defendants are liable
for the damages upon breach.
HELD:
Yes, on the question of plaintiffs right to
recover damages from the defendants, the
law (Art 1313 & 1314 of ncc) provides that
creditors are protected in cases of
contracts intended to defraud them; and
that any third persons who induces
another to violate his contract shall be
liable for damages to the other contracting
party. Similar liability is demandable under
Arts 20 and 21 which may be given
retroactive effects ( Art 225-253) or under
Arts 1902 and 2176 of the old Civil code.
The facts of this case,as stated therefore,
clearly show that DALCO & DAMCO, after
failing to pay the 5th promissory note
upon its maturity, conspired jointly with
CONNELL to violate the provision of the
4th paragraph of the mortgages under the
foreclosure by attempting to defeat
plintiffs mortgages lien on the after
acquierd properties. As a result, the
plaintiffs had to go to court to protect their
rights thus jeopardize. Defendants liabilty
for damages is therefore clear.
The appealed judgment is affirmed in all
respects.
Article 1199
DECEMBER 9, 2014 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang taong kahaliling mananagot sa ibat-
ibang kabayaran ay kailangan isagawa ang
isa sa kanila. Ang Nagpapautang ay hindi
maaring pilitin tumanggap ng kabahagi ng
isa at kabahagi ng ibang pananagutan.
Case Digest by Ainna Fathi
Case: Ong Guan Can v. The Century
Insurance Co. (46 PHIL. 592),
December 2, 1924
FACTS PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES: Ong
Guan Can and the Bank of the Philippine
Islands
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: The Century
Insurance Co., LTD.
PONENTE: Villamor, J.
The plaintiff owned a building that was
insured against fire by the defendant in the
sum of Php 30,000, including the
merchandise therein contained in the sum
of Php 15,000. Both the house and
merchandise insured were burned in
February 28, 1923 while the policies issued
by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff
were still in force.
The CFI of Iloilo granted the case in favor
of the plaintiff that The Century Insurance
Co. should pay Ong Guan Can the sum of
Php 45,000 as the total value of the
insured house and merchandise. The
Insurance Company appealed that the
judgment be modified to permit it to
rebuild the house and that they be
relieved from the payment of the sum in
which the building was insured.
ISSUE/S Whether the defendant-
appellant can rebuild the house burnt as a
sufficient idemnity to the inured for the
actual loss suffered by him.
LAWS Article 1199. A person
alternatively bound by different
prestations shall completely perform one
of them.
The creditor cannot be compelled to
receive part of one and part of the other
undertaking. (1131)
HOLDINGS Yes. The defendant
may build the house as an alternative
prestation, freeing him from the payment
of the sum in which the building was
insured. This conclusion is in line with The
Civil Codes Article 1131.
Paying the sum in which the building was
insured is one of the 2 prestations
provided in one of the clauses stipulating
the conditions of the policies. Based on the
same Article of the Civil Code, the
complete performance of one of them is
sufficient to extinguish the obligation.
While there are several prestations, only
one is due.
Article 1200
DECEMBER 7, 2014 / JAIME ROBILLON
Bilang patakaran, ang pumili ng
kagustohan ay kakaibang karapatan
ipinagkakaloob sa maypakakautang, at
iyon ay maaring gawin ng nagpapautang
kung iyon ay hayagan ipinagkaloobsa
kanya. ang nasabing karaatan ay maari rin
ipagkaloob sa ibang tao kung iyon ay
ibinigay ng maypahintulot ang
magkabilang partido.
Ang nasabing karapatan ng may utang ay
hindi wagas. Ang ay roon utang ay walang
laya pumili ng pamamaraan magbayad
kung saan ang mga iyon ay;(1) ang
pagbibigay ay imposibli nnang gawin,(2)
labag sa batas 3) hindi boud ng
pananagutan, at ikalawa, kapag ang
mayrroon utang ay mayroon karapatan
pumili ng paraan sa pagbabayadw, kung
ang pagsasakaituparan ng mayroon
pagkakautang aybnawalan na karapatan
mamili sa paraan ng pagbabayad na iisa
lamang ang tangging pamamaraan ng
pagbabayad.
CASE. DIONE
FELIPE AGONCILLO, and his wife, MARCELA
MARIO, plaintiff-appellees,
vs.
CRISANTO JAVIER, administrator of the
estate of the late Anastasio Alano.
FLORENCIO ALANO and JOSE ALANO,
defendants-appellants.
FACTS: Three debtors got a loan from
Marino and bound themselves to pay
P2,700.00. The loan was swcured by a
mortgage of a house and lot. It was
agreed that if upon maturity of the debt,
the debtors are insolvent, they would cede
the house and lot to Marino. If the house
and lot would not be sufficient to cover the
debt, the balance would be secured by the
mortgage of 4 parcels of land belonging to
one of the debtors. The titles were
delivered to Marino. As the debt was not
paid, Marino sued the debtors.
ISSUES: Whether or not the stipulation of
the parties is valid?
HELD: This stipulation is valid. It is simply
an alternative obligation, which is
expressly allowed by the law. The
agreement to convey the house and lot at
the debt in money at its maturity is,
however, in our opinion perfectly valid. It
is simply an undertaking that if the debt is
not paid in money, it will be paid in
another way. As we read the contract, the
agreement is not open to the objection
that the stipulation is apacto comisorio. It
is not an attempt to permit the creditor to
declare a forfeiture of the security upon
the failure of the debtor to pay the debt at
maturity. It is simply provided that if the
debt is not paid in money it shall be paid in
another specific way by the transfer of the
property at a valuation. Of course such an
agreement unrecorded, creates no right in
rem, but as between the parties, it is
perfectly valid, and specific performance
by its terms may be enforced unless
prevented by the creation of superior
rights in favor of third persons.
Article 1201
DECEMBER 6, 2014 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang pagpili ay walang bisa o saysay o bisa
maliban mula sa manahon na iyon ay
ipinagbigay alam.
Napiling kaso; Ong Guan v Century
Insurance
ONG GUAN CAN VS CENTURY INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.
Case No. G.R No. L-21196 Feb 6, 1924
Cause of Action : For recovery of Amount
On Insurance Policy
Issues: Whether or not judgment by
default rendered by lower court should be
set aside?
FACTS:
In May 1923, plaintiff instituted axction
with the CFI Ilo-Ilo to recover sum of
money due on Insurance policy, copy of
the complaint was served upon defendant
though its Ilo-Ilo branch. The defendant
files its appearance with the clerk of court,
it is alleged and not denied, was mailed at
the City of Manila on the 5th day of June
1923, lawyer for the plaintiff presented
motion praying that a jugement by default
be rendered against the defendant, and
said motion was granted and judgment
was rendered.
On June 8, 1923 defendant filed motion
praying that judgment by default be set
aside, and cited that the notice of
appearance was mailed and the steamship
Vizcaya ,carrying mails including said
notice did not arrive at Ilo-Ilo in the usual
course until after the time has expired for
filing its appearance as the ship
encountered a storm at sea.
The CFI denied defendant motion, the
second motion was likewise denied by the
CFI hence appealed to this court.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
The time fixed for filing papers in a case is
generally directory and the court always
has in its power, in the exercise of a proper
discretion , to extend time fixed by law
whenever the end of justice, would seem
to demand such an extension ( Wood v
Forbes & Farm Ham 5 cal 62).
Supreme court ordered and decreed that,
defendants appearance be admitted and
that it be given 10 a days period to answer
from notice of this decision
It is settle rule, that if pleading of other
documents essential to a case are
entrusted to the mails in due season and
under proper precaution and are lost or
miscarried, it will be ground for vacating a
judgment be default ( Boyd Vs Williams &
Overbaught 70 N.J law 1985)
Article 1202
DECEMBER 5, 2014 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang may utang ay mawawalan ng
karapatan mamili kung sa mga kabayaran
na saan siya ay tiyakang mauubliga, iisa
lamang ang maaring gawin.
Ang halimbawang kaso ay Legarda v Mailhi
( 88 Phil. 637)
CASE DIGEST BY BONG REYES
LEGARDA, ET AL. VS. MIAILHE
FACTS:
A creditor demanded either Philippine
currency or english currency for a
mortgaged contract they agreed in 1943.
This choice was made by the creditor. It
happened that during the time of maturity
these currencies were outlawed by the
Japanese in 1942.
ISSUE:
Whether or not contract maybe closed?
HELD:
No, there are alternatives that can be use
to have reasonable payment. Since
Japanese currency are permissible that
time. Illegal and impossible solutions are
untenable. The same was agreed that in
accordance with the agreement of
payment during the Military Japanese
occupation it is the same as the Philippine
currency.
Article 1203
DECEMBER 4, 2014 / JAIME ROBILLON
Kapag sa pamamagitan ng nagpapautang
kagagawan ang may utang hindi
makapamili ayon sa patakaran ng
obligasyon, ang huli ay maaring kansilahin
ang kasunduan na mayroon mga damyos
ILLUSTRATION (by Allan Pailan)
A agreed to paint either residential house
commercial building of B of P100,000.00,
B however sold his commercial building ,
the alternative has become impossible
because of the change of ownership.
A has now the option to paint the
residential house or rescind the contract
with damages if he suffered any.
Article 1204
DECEMBER 3, 2014 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang nagpautang ay may karapatan para sa
kabayaran sa danyos kung, sa sala ng
nangutang, lahat ng mga bagay na maaring
maging kabayaran ay wala na, o kung ang
pagsasagawa ng obligasyon ay naging
imposible.
Ang kabayaran ay malalaman sa halaga ng
huling bagay na nawala, o mula sa huling
puwedeng maging serbisyo na naging
imposible gawin.
Danyos maliban sa halaga ng huling bagay
o huling serbisyo na puwedeng maibigay o
maisagawa ay maari din na maibigay.
Discussion by Jaime Robillon
This is the effect of loss of object of
obligation, if some of the objects of an
obligation have been lost or become
impossible even through fault of the
debtor , the latter is not liable since he has
the right of choice and the obligation can
still be performed. And if, all of them have
been lost or have become impossible
through his fault, the creditor shall have
the right to indemnity for damages since
the obligation can no longer be complied
with. The basis of indemnity shall be fixed
taking as basis the value of the thing lost.
Article 1205
DECEMBER 2, 2014 / JAIME ROBILLON
Kung ang pagpli ay laharang ibinigay sa
nagpautang ang obligasyon ay hindi na
magiging alternative mula sa araw na
nakapili na ang nagpautang at nailahad ito.
Bago mangyari iyon, and responsibilidad
ng nangutang ay pamumunuan ng mga
sumusunod na alituntunin:
(1) Kung ang isa sa mga bagay ay nawala
dahil sa hindi inaasang pangyayari, maari
syang magbigay ng ibang bagay na pipiliin
ng nagpautang mula sa mga natitirang
bagay, o kung ano man ang natitira kung
nag-iisa nalang ito.
(2) Kung ang pagkawala ng isa sa mga
bagay ay dahil sa sala ng nangutang, ang
nagpautang ay maaring kumuha mula sa
mga natitirang bagay, o sa pamamagitang
ng presyo ng nawalang bagay dahil sa sala
ng nangutang na may karapatan para sa
bayad para sa danyos.
(3) Kung ang lahat ng bagay ay nawala
dahil sa sala ng nangutang, and pagpili ng
nagpautang ay maibabase sa mga presyo
ng bawat isang bagay, kasama na rdito ang
pagbabayad ng nangutang para sa danyos.
Ang mga alituntunin na ito ay masasakop
din ang mga obligasyon ng pag-gawa o
hindi pag-gawa kung sakaling isa, iilan o
lahat ng mga prestation ay magiging
imposible.
Discussion by Jaime Robillon
This article refers to a case, when the right
of choice belongs to the creditor. In
alternative obligations, the right of choice
as a rule belong to debtor, however, a
debtor ay expressly give the right of choice
to the creditor. I such case, the provisions
with respect to debtor are laid down in the
preceding article. Before the creditor
makes the selction, the debtor cannot
incur in delay. The creditor can make a
choice in case wherein; 1) when the thing
is lost through a fortuitous event; 2) when
a thing is lost through debtors fault;3)
when all the things are lost though
debtors fault. This article is also applicable
to a personal obligation.
Article 1206
DECEMBER 1, 2014 / JAIME ROBILLON
Kapag isa lang ang prestation na
napagkasunduan, ngunit ang obligor ay
maaring magbigay ng iba pang prestation
bilang kapalit nito, ang obligasyon ay
masasaad na facultative.
Hindi magiging liable ang obligor sa
pagkawala o pagkasira ng bagay na
itinakdang kapalit, sa pamamagitan ng
pagpapawalang-bahala ng obligor. Ang
obligor ay magiging liable lamang sa
pagkawala ng kapalit na bagay, sa kanyang
pagwawalang-bahala o pandaraya, kapag
nakalipas na ang araw kung kailan
kailangan maibalik o maisagawa ang
obligasyon.
Discussion by Jaime Robillon
A facultative obligation is one where only
one prestation has been agreed upon but
the obligor may render another is a
substitution. And the effect of loss before
substitution, if the principal thing is lost
through the fortuitous event the obligation
is extinguished, otherwise, debtor is liable
for damages. The effect of the loss is
merely to extinguish the facultative
character of the obligation. The effect after
substitution, if the principal thing is lost,
debtor is not liable whatever may be the
cause of the loss, because it is no longer
due, and the differences of facultative and
alternatives are as follows:
FACULTATIVE:
Only one prestation is due although debtor
is allows to substitute it.
the right to make the substitution is given
only to the debtor
the loss of thing due extinguish the
obligation
the loss of thing due through his fault
makes him liable
the loss of the substitute before the
substitution though the fault of debtor
does not render him liable.
ALTERNATIVE:
several prestation are due but compliance
with one is sufficient
the right of choice maybe given to the
creditor or third party
the loss of one or more of the alternative
through a fortuitous event does not
extinguish the obligation
the loss of one of the alternative through
the fault of debtor does not render him
liable
where the choice belong to the creditor
the loss of one alternative through the
fault debtor give rise to liability.
Kapag tanging isang kapakinabangan
lamang ang napagkasunduan, pero maaari
na ang nagpapautang ay humiling pa ng
isang kahalili nito, ang obligasyon ay
tinatawag na facultative.
Ang pagkawala o pagkasira ng isang bagay
na bilang kahalili, kung di maingatan ng
nangutang ay hindi sya mananagot dito.
Ngunit kapag ang kahalili ay nagawa na sya
ay mananagot na kung ito ay magdulot ng
abala, mapabayaan o magdulot ng
pandaraya.
Discussion by Bong Reyes
The obligor can give another kind of item;
there can be a substitution of an item, if
needed.
ILLUSTRATION:
Kaye promised that she will deliver a
canon scanner and printer to Danny
because she cannot give him an HP printer
with scanner.
Article 1207
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang pagsangayon ng dalawa o mahigit
pang nagpapautang o sa dalawa at mahigit
pang mga mangungutang sa iisa at katulad
na pananagutan hindi ibig sabihin na
bawat isa sa mga nagpapautang
maykarapatan maningil o na ang bawat isa
sa mga may utang ay akuin ang buong
kanbayaran. Mayroon lamang
pinagsamasamang pananagutan kong ang
obligasyon ay nagsasaad nito.
Halimabawa dito ay ang kaso ng mga Roa.
RICARDO ROA V PH CREDIT CORPORATION
& COURT OF APPEALS (JNR)
CASE NO. G.R No. 106037 June 15, 1993
CAUSE OF ACTION: Certiorari
ISSUES: Whether or not the Second
Petition applies the Res Judicata Rule
FACTS:
In July 1982 PH credit Corp files a
complaint with Replevin against Cagayan
De Oro Management Corp (CMC) in the
RTC Misamis Oriental, to recover several
tools, equipments and furnitures subject of
a chattel mortgage executed by CMC in
favor of PH Credit to secure loans
amounting to 484,351.14. CMC filed a
counterclaim, and prayed that it be
discharge from paying 3 promissory notes
which it allegedly executed after is was
misled by misrepresentation of the PH
Credit. Without awaiting the final
desposition of the repliven, PH credit
instituted a deficiency judgment against
CMC with the RTC Manila, alleging that, all
real estate mortgage by CMC had been
foreclosed but a balance of 2,810,734.30
inclusive of interest and penalties had
been left outstanding on the 3rd
promissory note executed.
RTC Misamis dismissed the case for failure
to prosecute the case Civil Case No. 8651
and ordered the reception of evidence on
the counter claims of CMC. Aug 1988 PH
credit filed a third case with the RTC
Manila and impleaded Emeterio Roa Jr and
Ricardo Roa in place of CMC which had
became insolvent and filed an appeal with
the Court of Appeals, however, the C.A
dismissed the appeal, on reason that there
was identity of rights asserted and relief
sought in both replevin and deficiency
judgment sought, and in Feb 1989 it
annulled RTC misamis ruling on Sept 13,
1988 and prohibited RTC Misamis from
proceeding with the counter claims and to
dismiss the CMC counter claim for failure
to prosecute after 5 years from dismissal
of the complaint, and the counter claim
was permissive and had not paid the filing
fees.
Emeterio Roa Jr & Ricardo filed a motion to
dismiss case against them on the ground of
Res Judicata / Litis Pendencia, and the case
No. 88-45895 were suspended pending the
resolution of case No. 15845. The RTC
Manila denied motion filed by Roa which
they subsequently went to Court of
Appeals contesting the RTC Manila ruling.
The C.A denied the Roa petition and said
neither the dismissal of the deficiency
judgment nor the dismissal of replevin and
the counter claims, bars the prosecution of
the second deficiency suit.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
There was no identity of subject matter,
cause of action and relief between the civil
case of replevin and deficiency judgment.
Dismissal of C.A case no. 19224 was not a
judgment on the merit and cannot be
considered as conclusive adjudication of
the controversy. The dismissal was
predicated on 2 grounds ;(a) the pending
case 8651;(b) and the prematurity of cause
of action for the foreclosure sale by PH
credit which could not proceed until it
could recover possession of the properties
chattel s from CMC.
A judgment in order to work as res
Judicata must be on the merit ( Molder vs
Meller, 104 Phil 731). A judgment
dismissing an action because of the
pendency of another suit cannot operate
as Res Judicata, which requires that;a)
there must be an earlier final judgment; b).
the court which rendered decision must
have jurisdiction of the matter and the
parties; c). the judgment was based on the
merit of the case; d). there is between the
first and second suit identity of parties
involved, subject matter, cause of action
and relief sought( Francisco vs Blas 91 Phil
1/; Diana vs Batangas Transport co. 93 Phil
391 and Magdangal Vs City of Olongapo
179 SCRA 507).
ARTICLE
Article 1208
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Kung mula sa batas o natural o kataga ng
obligasyon na tiniran sa nakaraang artikulo
ang ka baliktaran ay hindi hayag ang
pautang ay ipinagpapalagay na hati-hati sa
maraming kabahagi kung ilang ang
nagpapautang o mangungutang, ang utang
ay liwalay sa isat isa at napapaloob sa
patakaran panghukuman ukol sa ibat ibang
usapin.
From Dennis to jnr
Article 1209
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Kung ang paghahati ay hindi imposible ,
ang karapatan ng mga may pautang ay
apektado lamang sa kanilang sama-samang
mga gawa at ang utang at paniningil ay
maipatutupad lamang sa pagitan ng
usapang legal laban sa lahat ng may
pagkakautang, kung isa sa mga may utang
ay maghikahos, ang ibang may utang ay
hindi mag aabono ng kanyang kabahagi.
Ang artikulong ito ay tugma para sa
pinagsamang hindi mapaghihiwalay na
pananagutan, dahil ang pagbubuklod ay
hindi itinalaga at ang pagbabayad o bagay
ay hindi maaring pagbukorin. Ang
pinagsamang hindi mapaghihiwalay na
pananagutan, para sa may mga utang ang
kanilang pagbabayad ay dapat na may
pahintulot ng ibang may pagkakautang.
Para sa mga nagpapautang dapat mayroon
ng sama-samang pagkilos na may pagkiling
sa karapatan ng may pautang.
Illustration(by Allan Pailan);
A,B,C,D are solidary creditors, in which E is
a debtor, if one of the creditors made an
action to demand from E to fulfill Es
obligation, then E cannot made payment
to only one of the creditors. Payment of E
must be made to all.
Article 1210
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang hindi mapaghahati-hati na
pananagutan ay hindi nagbibigay daan sa
pinagbuklod, hindi ibig sabihin na ang
pinagsamasama ay mapaghahatihati.
Pagpuna:
Ang hindi pagkakahatihati ay mayroon
tatlong(3) uri (1) legal na aspikto (2)
convensyonal (3) pinagbuklod na
obligasyon.
Ang hindi mapaghihiwalay na
pananagutan ay pagbabayad o bagay na
hindi magagawa maliban baguhin ang
kahalagahan o usapan.
Discussion by Ainna Fathi:
An obligation to deliver a live dog is
indivisible. If the obligation be made
divisible, the dog will have to be delivered
in pieces. In this case, the essence of the
object is destroyed.
Article 1211
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Pinagbuklod maaring manatili bagamat ang
mga may pautang at mga mangungutang
ay hindi binibigkis ng kapariho paraan at
kahalintulad na panahon at kalagayan.
Article 1212
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Bawat isa sa mga pinagbuklod na may mga
pautang ay maaaring gumawa ng may
pakinabang sa iba, ngunit hindi lahat na
maaaring makasama sa iba nilang kasama.
Pagpuna:
Ang pinagsamasamang nagpapautang ay
consipto na kaparihong antas ng
pananagutan at pakinabang
DISCUSSION BY BONG REYES
Beneficial Acts of Solidary Creditors
All creditors may perform acts that will
benefit each other. They may help each
other to have more gains and built up their
relationship in good standing.
Prejudicial Acts of Solidary Creditors
If one or more of the member performs
acts that will have bad effects, lost of profit
or may harm the good standing he will be
liable to his co-creditors.
Article 1213
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Sa mga pinagsamasamang mga
nagpapautang, hindi nila maaaring ibigay o
ipasa sa iba ang kanyang mga karapatan ng
walang pahintulot ang iba pang
nagpapautang o mamumuhonan. At kong
walang pahintulot ang isa sa may ari ng
pinagsama samang puhunan ang
pagbibigay sa iba ng kanyang mga
karapatan ay walang bisa.
Paala-ala wala kaso naka saad ang
artikulong ito
Article 1214
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang may pagkakautang ay maaring
magbayad sa isa sa pinagsama-samang
nagpapautang, ngunit kung may paniningil
sa hukuman o sa labas ng hukuman ng isa
sa kanila, ang pagbabayad ay dapat doon
sa sumingil.
Pagpuna:
Ang may utang ay maaring magbayad sa
sino man sa magkakasamang
nagpapautang, at ang pagbabayad kung
tatanggapin sino man sa kanilang
magkakasamang may pautang ay mag aalis
ng pananagutan.
Illustration (by Allan Pailan):
A,B,C,D are the solidary creditors
representing the credit union in which E is
a debtor. if one of them(creditors) or C
made a demand on E in order to fulfilled
the latter obligation, E can only made
payment to C and that payment is
sufficient to effect the extinguishment of
obligation of E.
Article 1215
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Paghalili, pagpapalitan, pagbubuklod o
pagpapatawad ng utang ginawa ng sinu
man sa sama-samang nagpapautang sa
sino man sa magkakasamang may utang,
ay mag papaalis ng pananagutan ng hindi
apikto sa susog ng Artikulong 1219.
Ang may pautang na may ginawa alin man
sa katulad na gawain, ganun din doon sa
naningil ng pautang ay dapat managot sa
iba para sa kabahagi ng pananagutan na
naayon sa kanya-kanyang kabahagi.
Pagpuna:
Pahalili- walang paghahalili kung ang
obligasyon ay binago.
Pagpapalitan- ay nagaganap kung ang
dalawang tao ay may utang sa isat isa,
kapwa may utang at nagpautang.
Pagsasaisa- kung ang katauha ng may
pautang at ang may utang ay iisang tao
lamang.
Pagpapatawad- ang pagpapatawad ay
isang kusang loob at kabutihan ng
kalooban.
Discussion by Ainna Fathi:
When any of these are made by the
solitary creditors or with any of the solitary
debtors, the obligation will extinguished
without prejudice to the provisions of
Article 1219:
(1) Novation when obligations are
modified by:
changing their object or principal
conditions;
substituting the person of the debtor;
subrogating a third person in the rights of
the creditor
(2) Compensation when two persons, in
their own right, become creditors and
debtors of each other (e.g A owes B Php
2,000, B borrowed Php 2,000 from A)
(3) Confusion Or Merger of Rights when
the characters of the creditor and debtor
are merged in the same person (e.g
Company A needs to provide Company B
with janitorial services, Company A merged
with Company B and formed Company C)
(4) Remission Or Condonation the
gratuitous abandonment by the creditor of
his right. It is essentially gratuitous and the
acceptance by the obligor is necessary (e.g
X owes Z Php 10,000. Z tells X to forget
about the Php 10,000 he owes)
Article 1216
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang nagpapautang ay maaring maghabol
labang sa kahit sino sa mga
magkakasamang may pautang. Ang
paniningil ng isa sa kanila o sa iba o sa
lahat ng sabay-sabay. Ang pag singil ng
sino man sa kanila ay hindi hadlang upang
singiin ang sino man sa kanila habang ang
utang kabuuhan ng utang ay hindi pa
nasisingil.
CASE. DIONE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-
appellee,
vs.
CONCEPCION MINING COMPANY, INC., ET
AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS: The present action was instituted
by the plaintiff to recover from the
defendants the face of a promissory note.
ISSUES: Can the defendants pray, as a
special defense, that the estate of said
deceased Vicente L. Legarda be included as
party-defendant.
HELD: No. The court in its decision ruled
that the inclusion of said defendant is
unnecessary and immaterial, in accordance
with the provisions of Article 1216 of the
Deny Civil Code and section 17 (g) of the
Negotiable Instruments Law.

ART. 1216. The creditor may proceed
against any one of the solidary debtors or
some of them simultaneously. The demand
made against one of them shall not be an
obstacle to those which may subsequently
be directed against the others so long as
the debt has not been fully collected.
The case was filed only against the
defendants and the judgment cannot be
executed against the other co-debtors
who were not made parties in the
complaint.
Article 1217
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang bayad ginawa ng isa sa
magkakasamang mangungutang magaalis
na ng obligasyon. Kung dalawa o mahigit
pang kamangungutang ang nag alok ng
bayad, ang nagpapautang ang pipile kung
alin alok ang kanyang tatanggapin.
Sino man ang nagbayad ay maaring
maningil sa kanyang kapwa mangungutang
ayon sa kani-kanyang parti kasama na
iyong tubo na nabayaran na. Kung ang
pagbabayad ay ginawa bago dumating ang
nakatakdang pagbabayad, walang tubo
para sa nasasakop na panahon ang dapat
singilin.
Kapag isa sa magkakasamang
mangungutang ang hindi makapagbayad
dahil sa kanyang kadukhaan, ang kanyang
kaparting babayaran ay sasagutin na ng
kanyang kasamang mangungutang ayon sa
kanilang kabahagi ng pananagutan
Mga halimbawang kaso:
Joseph v Bautista 170 SCRA 540 / BPI v
McCoy 52 Phil. 831
CASE DIGEST BY BONG REYES
Case: BPI v. MAY MCCOY (G. R. No. L-
30111)
FACTS On June 19, 1919, Mc Coy,
deceased, and the present six appellants,
with three others, were interested in a
domestic corporation known as
Cooperative Coconut Products Co., Inc.,
and became liable to BPI for money
advanced by the bank to the said
corporation. When the company did not
prosper, the six appellants addressed to
the bank a demand letter.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the letter must be
accepted to be considered valid?
LAWS
Article 1217
HOLDINGS The letter of August 21,
1922, from the President of the bank have
sufficient notification of acceptance, when
the bank acted to that offer, the appellants
and Mc Coy became obligated according to
the terms of the letter. The word
acceptable was evidently used as
accepted, the final paragraph suggests
that the property should be awarded to
the bank, signatory parties should protect
themselves in bidding. The opinion of two
banks acceptance should be in precise
form indicated, which could not have been
considered material to the writers of the
letter. The judgement of the trial court
against the said six defendants, requiring
them to pay to their former codefendant,
but now plaintiff, the sum of P 1,714.28
and other proportional part and legal
interest was affirmed.
Article 1218
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang pagbabayad ng kasamahang
mangungutang ay walang karapatan
maningil sa kanyang pawang
magnungutang kung ang nasabing
pagbabayad ay isinagawa pagkatapos ang
obigasyon magbayad ay mapaso na o
naging iligal na.
Pagpuna:
Ang artikulong ito ay angkop doon sa:
1. Utang na paso na ayon sa panahon
itinakda ng batas.
2. Ang obligasyon o pagbabayad ay bawal
na sa batas bago pa mabayaran ang
utang/obligasyon
ang sino man nagbayad ay hindi na
sasaulian / babayaran pa.
Article 1219
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang pagpapatawad na ginawa ng isang
nagpapautang sa kabahagi ng isang may
pagkakautang, di nangangahulugan na
wala na siyang pananagutan sa kapwa o
iba kamangngutang nya, kong sakali ang
kabouhan ng utang ay binayaran nang sino
man sa kanila bago magkabisa ang
pagpapatawad.
Paala-ala wala kaso nakasaad sa artikulong
ito.
Article 1220
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang pagpapatawad sa buong
pagkakautang ay nakuha sa pamamagitan
ng isa sa magkakasamang mangungutang
wala siyang karapatan na manghingi mula
sa kapwa niyang mangungutang.
Pagpuna:
Ang pagpapatawad ay isang kabutihan
loob o awa at walang anu man ibinayad.
Sa kabahagi na pagpapatawad, sino man
ang mag bayad doon sa parti na hindi
pinatawad o ipinagpaubaya, ang sino man
nagbayad ay maaring niyang singilin ang
iba ayon sa kanikanyang kabahagi ng
utang. At doon naman sa mga nauukol sa ibang
may utang, maari rin syang maging kasama
Discussion by Ainna Fathi: ngunit doon lamang sa bahagi na sya ang
may responsibilidad.
Illustration:
Case Digest by Bong Reyes:
A, B and C are solidary debtors to D. They
owed D Php 20,000 that B offered to pay. BRAGANZA VS. VILLA ABRILLE
D, being a kind and impulsive person,
remitted the amount to B. The obligation is FACTS:
extinguished and B is not entitled to
reimbursement from A and C as B did not Miss Braganza had a two sons because of
spend anything for the remission granted insufficient funds to support her children
by D as it is a gratuitous one. she owed P10,000.00 to Villa Abrielle. She
signed a promissory note binding herself
Article 1221 and her two sons as solidary debtors. Two
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON years after the war Villa Abrielle sued her
Kung ang bagay ay nawala na o kung ang for not paying her debt.
pagbabayad ay imposible na walang
pagkakamali ang magkakasamang ISSUE:
mangungutang, ang pagbabayad ay
mawawala na. Whether or not minority of co-debtors can
release them in their obligation?
Kung mayroon kasalanan ang sino man sa
kanila ang lahat ay mananagot sa mga HELD:
nagpapautang para doon sa prisyo at
kabayaran ng damyos at tubo, na walang No, minority of children cannot release the
sagabal na maghabol laban sa mother in their responsibilities, if they
napatunayan o nagpabayang kasamang used this as a defense, minors can only
mangungutang. plead it and one the first place Braganza
did not tell Villa Abrielle that her children
Kung sa pamamagitan ng kalikasan / hindi are minors that if he only knew it at first he
inanasahan pangyayari, ang bagay ay will not lend them the money.
nawala o ang pagbabayad naging
imposible na pagkatapos ng isa sa
magkakasasamang pangungutang ay na
antala sa pamamagitan ng panghukuman o
labas sa hukuman paniningil , ang mga
susug ng artikulong 1147 ang masusunod.
Article 1222
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON
Ang magkakasamang mangunugtang, sa
isang pagkilos laban sa maypautang ay
maaring gumamit ng mga depinsa na
magmumula sa natural na obligasyon at
mula sa mga pang pesonal niyang depinsa
at sa kanyang kabahagi na utang.