Art. 1106. By prescription, one acquires ownership
On the other hand, the creditor loses the right to
and other real rights through the lapse of time in the
manner and under the conditions laid down by law.
In the same way, rights and conditions are lost by
prescription.
Prescription is statute-based. It is based on law. That
is why you remember your persons, the law fixes the
period wherein the spouse may file a petition for
legal separation or annulment of marriage. That in
the event of legal separation and the five-year period
from the occurrence of the cause, had lapsed, then
the aggrieved spouse can no longer file a petition for
legal separation.
The same holds true in annulment.
The failure of the aggrieved spouse to file the petition
for annulment within the period prescribed by article
47, in relation to art 45, means that the aggrieved
spouse had already ratified the defect in the marriage
and thus becomes a valid marriage.
Now, if we talk of ordinary contracts, ex: a monetary
obligation, the general rule is the debtor has to pay
within 10 years. But the debtor does not have
obligation whatsoever to deliver the money.
So if X, borrowed money from Y (P 20,000) , X has no
obligation to go to Y and deliver the 20 thousand
pesos. Because the law requires that demand must
come from the creditor.
In fact, in Article 1169, if you read in advance,
provides that without the judicial or extrajudicial
demand, delay of the debtor does not begin. Being
the active subject, the creditor has to make a demand
upon X. So if Y does not do anything to protect his
credit, allowed ten years to lapse without making any
written demand--the law requires written demand, it
is not merely oral--then the obligation has already
prescribed. So, on the part of the debtor it becomes
what we call Acquisitive Prescription. He acquired
the object of the obligation consisting in the sum of
20K.
demand fulfillment of the obligation because the
period within which to demand fulfillment has
already prescribed. So this is based on law. But if the
person is aware of the existence of a right, but did
not do anything about it, sleep on their rights, that is
not based on prescription. That is based on laches.
You re sleeping on your rights. And laches is not
based on law. It is not statute-based. it is based on
equity. But both can be valid defenses. Only that with
respect to laches, it is the court that will appreciate
it.
Whether to grant the motion to dismiss on the
ground of laches. whereas if what is alleged in the
defense would be prescription, and the court finds
that indeed, the right had already prescribed, the
court simply dismisses it. On laches, the court will
merely be the one to decide whether defense on
ground of laches is valid or not.
Art. 1107. Persons who are capable of acquiring
property or rights by the other legal modes may
acquire the same by means of prescription.
Minors and other incapacitated persons may acquire
property or rights by prescription, either personally
or through their parents, guardians or legal
representatives.
How do you acquire property aside from
prescription?
- Gratuitous and Onerous Title Kommentar [U1]: Bestowed or
granted without consideration or
exchange for something of value. The
What is the nature of contract entered into by a term gratuitous is applied to deeds,
bailments, and other contractual
minor? agreements. A gratuity is something
given by someone who has no
- Voidable. obligation to give
Kommentar [U2]: Title to the
It might be ratified by the parent of the guardian or property acquired by giving valuable
consideration is onerous title.
the minor himself upon reaching the age of majority. Consideration can be by payment
money, rendition of services, discharge
of lien, or performance of conditions
Suppose by the time the minor entered into a
contract disposing his property and the guardian was
aware, and allowed the time to lapse and
prescription had set in, what will be the recourse of
the minor?
- Damages. That s art. 1108
Art. 1108. Prescription, both acquisitive and
extinctive, runs against:
(1) Minors and other incapacitated persons who
have parents, guardians or other legal
representatives;
(2) Absentees who have administrators, either
appointed by them before their disappearance, or
appointed by the courts;
(3) Persons living abroad, who have managers or
administrators;
(4) Juridical persons, except the State and its
subdivisions.
Persons who are disqualified from administering
their property have a right to claim damages from
their legal representatives whose negligence has
been the cause of prescription.
If the absentee, before disappearing appoints a
guardian or administrator over the property? Ilang
number of years? For the persons interested of the
property may file application of absence? 5 years. But
if there is no person appointed? 2 years.
May the corporations of the State, the properties,
may be acquired through prescription?
- Remember suability of state. Proprietary.
An unregistered parcel of land, owned by the State,
may be the object of acquisition through prescription.
Although in a recent case, the Supreme Court laid
down two requisites in order for the property of the
state which is already alienable, and thus may be
acquired through purchase or through prescription
has to pass these two requisites: Read Republic vs
Espinosa.
Art. 1109. Prescription does not run between
husband and wife, even though there be a
separation of property agreed upon in the marriage
settlements or by judicial decree.
Neither does prescription run between parents and
children, during the minority or insanity of the
latter, and between guardian and ward during the
continuance of the guardianship.
Art. 1110. Prescription, acquisitive and extinctive,
runs in favor of, or against a married woman. (n)
Art. 1111. Prescription obtained by a co-proprietor
or a co-owner shall benefit the others. (1933)
This would refer to property co-owned. It is a co-
owner in real sense. And thus if that the property
total land area is increased and there is only one of
the co-owners administering the property, he will not
exclude the other co-owners who were not present.
And actually administering over the property will not
be excluded from the increased of the area and that
will also benefit the other co-owners. But you will
know later in your property that co-owner may
change the co-ownership but you will learn that in
your property.
Art. 1112. Persons with capacity to alienate property
may renounce prescription already obtained, but
not the right to prescribe in the future.
Prescription is deemed to have been tacitly
renounced when the renunciation results from acts
which imply the abandonment of the right acquired.
(1935)
For instance there is disagreement between the
buyer and the seller and there is it that contract is
based on the payment in installment basis, suppose it
would be agreed by the parties that the failure of the
buyer to pay two or more installment, the property
shall now be reverted back to the seller-that is the
condition. From the event of non-delivery of
installment due, then, and whatever the advances or
payments have been made by the buyer shall be
considered reasonable rights over the property, is
that valid? Yes, it is.
And supposed the buyer failed to pay 3 installments,
there is already a right on the part of the seller to
cancel the contract and the property is now reverted
back to the seller. So, can the seller renounce it? Yes.
You can renounce it, you just continue to pay (buyer),
it is a renunciation of a right which are already been
acquired by the seller, because supposedly the
ownership thereof will be reverted back to the
owner-seller. But you cannot renounce prescription
in advance that will become tantamount to fraud.
What will you truly renounce wherein you are not in
possession of right? Prescription is deemed to be in
tacit, or tacit renunciation, like in this example, the
creditor is aware of the fact that the obligation is
already due and demandable, but instead of
demanding of the creditor of the payment of 20,000,
he leaves the Philippines because he wants to go to
US. With that, there is already a tacit renunciation-
the creditor tacitly renounced his right over the
obligation of 20,000.
Art. 1113. All things which are within the commerce
of men are susceptible of prescription, unless
otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of
its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall
not be the object of prescription. (1936a)
Now the exceptions are those properties
acquired/possessed through a crime by the person
responsible of the crime itself. Like if your watch has
been snatched by X, ten years later, you find the
same person wearing your watch, and the person
who took without consent, did not apply it to
prescription because of the . But if the snatcher will
pledge it(pledge is a simple term), fortunately or
unfortunately you passed by a pawnshop, and the
pawnshop has this auction sale, and one of the items
under auction sale is your watch for 10,000,
someone bought it and you said akin yan , will you
get it? No, that is one of the exceptions if it is bought
through public auction, fair, markets, that will not be
recovered even at the time of first acquisition it is
through a crime. But if you bought it from the
snatcher, then both of you are criminally liable under
Anti- Fencing Law. But if you bought it through
pledge you can recover it through the help of police.
Things that are common to all like water air, or seas.
Properties not patrimonial in character of the State
are also exempted from prescription except
abandoned streets, plazas, rivers/canals. (Piece of
land that guides the water is a property of the State).
Regalian Doctrine- certain properties cannot be
acquired through prescription because it is owned
by the State unless the State declared it alienable
and disposable. However, even if the property is
declared by The State alienable and disposable, there
are three requisites has been complied with before
this can be acquired even through purchase or
prescription and this was stated in the case of
Republic vs Espinosa. Also, properties acquired
through Torrens System cannot be applied by
prescription. That is why if the court did not
implement the removal of the squatters, that is
actually an order to remove the squatters occupying
the area, the squatters cannot cry foul even if they
have been living in the place since time immemorial.
The fact that it is the registered under the Torrens
system it cannot be defeated for mere occupancy or
possession because of one of the exception under
prescription.
Art. 1114. Creditors and all other persons interested
in making the prescription effective may avail
themselves thereof notwithstanding the express or
tacit renunciation by the debtor or proprietor.
(1937)
This is an ironic provision. Suppose there is a creditor
who renounces prescription, after ten years
generally, the obligation dispersed. Debtor: I am now
renouncing prescription, I like to pay the obligation
and the debtor delivers the object of the contract.
But the creditor will say No, I will make the
prescription effective.
Art. 1115. The provisions of the present Title are
understood to be without prejudice to what in this
Code or in special laws is established with respect to
specific cases of prescription. (1938)
Let us go back to Family Code with specific provisions
respecting the filing of actions. For purposes of legal
separation 5 YEARS, 1/2/3 years for impugning the
legitimacy/ illegitimacy of a child, Art. 47 which will
depend on the defect of the marriage but the petition
will have no prescription if void. Art 46?? if the donor
is third person; actions under donation by reason of
marriage.
Art. 1116. Prescription already running before the
effectivity of this Code shall be governed by laws
previously in force; but if since the time this Code
took effect the entire period herein required for
prescription should elapse, the present Code shall
be applicable, even though by the former laws a
longer period might be required. (1939)
The Father of the Civil Code is the Spanish Civil Code.
For instance, this is an example, suppose the purpose
of acquiring real rights, the Spanish Code requires 30
years but only under the Civil Code with good faith
and just title it is only 10 years. But if you apply the
Civil Code, the period has already lapsed; if you apply
apply the Spanish Civil Code, the period has yet to
elapse, so, in as much as it will favor the part of the
possessor you apply the provisions of the Civil Code.
Article 1117. Acquisitive prescription of dominion
and other real rights may be ordinary or
extraordinary.
Acquisitive prescription of dominion, remember
dominion? Acts of ownership.
In order that there shall be ordinary acquisitive
prescription which is only 10 years, there are 3
requisites aside from what is provided for in the
second paragraph of 1117, that s good faith and just
title, the third one is art. 1118…
Article 1118. Possession has to be in the concept of
an owner, public, peaceful and uninterrupted.
En concepto de dueno, concept of an owner, public
meaning it is acknowledged by all the persons living
within the area as well as others that you are the one
in possession of the property and exercising acts of
ownership, planting, reaping, paying taxes due on the
property and have it registered through the tax
declaration because this would refer to properties
not registered under the torrens system ha? Di ito
kasama doon. And uninterrupted. Peaceful, meaning
nobody is filing or questioning your possession over
the property, I m referring to physical actual
possession. Now the exception, ** art 1119**
Article 1119. Acts of possessory character executed
in virtue of license or by mere tolerance of the
owner shall not be available for the purposes of
possession.
This would refer to squatters noh that no matter how
long the squatters have been staying in the property,
the squatter cannot acquire the property through
prescription even under extraordinary acquisitive
prescription.
Article 1120. Possession is interrupted for the
purposes of prescription, naturally or civilly.
Article 1121. Possession is naturally interrupted
when through any cause it should cease for more
than one year.
The old possession is not revived if a new possession
should be exercised by the same adverse claimant.
Article 1122. If the natural interruption is for only
one year or less, the time elapsed shall be counted
in favor of the prescription.
Now what are the ways of interrupting possession for
purposes of prescription? There s a third one. The
first would be natural interruption. So when is there
natural interruption? As to interrupted possession for
purposes of prescription, if it had been interrupted
for more than 1 year, even if he had been in
possession of the property for nine years, but the fact
that it was interrupted for more than 1 year, so one
year, 370 days, that s already more than 1 year, so
the nine years that have already lapsed could no
longer be tacked in his favour, it will start all over
again, because it has been interrupted for more than
1 year, that is if he returns to the very same property
that he is in possession.
But, if the absence is one year or less, then the
number of years that he is already been in possession
of the property will be still counted in his favour.
Article 1123. Civil interruption is produced by
judicial summons to the possessor.
Now another way of interrupting is civil interruption,
when there is receipt of judicial summons. So in
effect, what happens here is that there is a complaint
filed against the possessor. And that is why, the
possessor receives summons. There would be no
summons without a complaint or a case filed against
the possessor.
But nonetheless, there is no interruption under the ff
circumstances...
Article 1124. Judicial summons shall be deemed not
to have been issued and shall not give rise to
interruption:
(1) If it should be void for lack of legal solemnities;
ex. If a case is filed against a person and summons is
served, attached to the summons must be the
complaint for purposes of the preparation of the
answer. So without the petition or the complaint only
summons were served, then there s no basis for the
one who received the summon to file an answer
because in the first place, he does not know what the
complaint is all about or even if what is attached to
the summons is the complaint but it did not specify
as to what court or what is the complaint, definitely
he would not be able to make the necessary answer,
so that would be void for lack of legal solemnities.
(2) If the plaintiff should desist from the complaint
or should allow the proceedings to lapse;
In the first situation, there was already a case filed,
there was an answer but the petitioner or
complainant filed a motion to dismiss, so that is
desistance. Or if he did not file a motion to dismiss
but was not present in or during the trial despite
receipt of summons. So after several summons
served for purposes of complainant to appear before
the court, but the court finds that there was this
receipt, because it was proven by the signature of the
complainant, but when the case was heard in court
he did not appear, of course the respondent can
always file a motion to dismiss the petition on the
ground of non-suited. The petitioner is non-suited. He
had lost interest in pursuing the case.
(3) If the possessor should be absolved from the
complaint.
And then, the third situation is that there was a
hearing, there was trial but the decision of the court
is in favour of the respondent. It says absolved from
the complaint.
In all these cases, the period of the interruption
shall be counted for the prescription.
So, it still continues.
Now another way of interrupting possession is art
1125.
Article 1125. Any express or tacit recognition which
the possessor may make of the owner's right also
interrupts possession.
Suppose he would say that actually, dili man jud ni
ako ba, kay kuan man ni, bcos he left it and
abandoned it so I decided to occupy the property
I m referring to properties not registered ha? This is
one property owned by the state, but is already
alienable and disposable.
Article 1126. Against a title recorded in the Registry
of Property, ordinary prescription of ownership or
real rights shall not take place to the prejudice of a
third person, except in virtue of another title also
recorded; and the time shall begin to run from the
recording of the latter.
As to lands registered under the Land Registration
Act, the provisions of that special law shall govern.
When we talk of registration parang 2 years lang yan
under the law on sales, the registration of property
even if it is registered under the torrens system.
Now, of course u know, a lot of Filipinos wanted to
make fast money and this comes true when you re
dealing with someone who is so ignorant of his rights.
So X has this parcel of land covered by TCT no. 1111
and sold this to property to Y. But because Y is
kuripot because the agreement is I will receive the
purchase price without any deduction, clean, you pay
all the expenses related to the registration of the
property including that of the attorney s fees. Now
you want to become lawyers, then you want to know
how much will I get if I were the one to execute the
deed of sale, it might be bet 3 to 10% and suppose it
runs to millions of pesos so happy no? So that s the
attorney s fees already for the preparation of the
registration etc. Then you have to pay capital gains
tax, then you have to pay documentary stamp tax,
then you have to pay transfer fee, then you have to
pay merienda fee *laughs*, tanan fees fees. Anyway,
so the title is already in my possession, so i m already
protected because the title is already mine only that I
will just have this transferred later. So, X went to the
register of deeds, made verification and finds out that
the title is still registered in his name. So, what would
he do? He would now execute an affidavit of lost
title. And then file a petition before the court for
reconstitution of lost title. Benta nya nanaman kay A,
si A kagaya kay Y ayaw din nyang gumastos, so meron
nnamn syang TCT No. 111 and with the deed of
absolute sale. Balik nnmn si X dun so wala parin, so
benta nya nnman kay C, because C as the name
implies maraming pera *joking* chinese eh, so what
he did he immediately worked on the transfer of the
title from the sellers name to that of his name. So as
between the three who has the better right? The law
on sales will now govern on double sales, 1544, on
double sales. So of the first to register, or the one in
actual possession, or the one who can present the
oldest title, in this case, inasmuch as all of them did
not actually take possession of the property, but C is
better protected because he had it registered. So
you see? Yan ang ibig sabihin ng 1126.
Article 1127. The good faith of the possessor
consists in the reasonable belief that the person
from whom he received the thing was the owner
thereof, and could transmit his ownership.
Article 1128. The conditions of good faith required
for possession in articles 526, 527, 528, and 529 of
this Code are likewise necessary for the
determination of good faith in the prescription of
ownership and other real rights.

This is not the good faith as defined in the case of
Nobleza vs Nuega.
Article 1129. For the purposes of prescription, there
is just title when the adverse claimant came into
possession of the property through one of the
modes recognized by law for the acquisition of
ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was
not the owner or could not transmit any right.
Now what are the modes of acquiring property?
Gratuitous or onerous title. OR? Prescription.
So the grantor was not the owner or could not
transmit any right. So he might be the owner but
could not transmit any right. Example would be
donation of all property. Is that void? Suppose the
donor would like to donate all his properties? Is that
void? The answer is NO. BUT, that can be rescinded.
Precisely it cannot be declared void. The donation of
all the properties can be rescinded if it would be
prejudicial to his creditors because the act is actually
one intended to defraud creditors. So it can be
rescinded. So if he would donate the property, then
that property he could not transmit any right over it,
if that would be part of those properties where the
donation had been rescinded. Or, for instance, let s
go to dacion en payment, a special form of payment
whereby the original obligation consisting in the sum
of money shall be paid at the time of the
performance thereof with property and the creditor
accepts. So that is one way of extinguishing an
obligation, dacion en payment. But the mere fact that
the creditor accepts what has been offered does not
mean that his right over it becomes vested already.
The reason is that dacion en payment is governed by
the law on sales and thus to perfect his title over it he
has to ask the debtor to execute a deed of absolute
sale over the property that was delivered. So by mere
acceptance does not transmit any right over to the
creditor who accepted it because of the absence of
the deed of absolute sale, inasmuch as what would
be the basis of the transfer ownership will be the
deed of sale in favour of the creditor. So that is
another example.
Article 1130. The title for prescription must be true
and valid.
Article 1131. For the purposes of prescription, just
title must be proved; it is never presumed.
Article 1132. The ownership of movables prescribes
through uninterrupted possession for four years in
good faith.
The ownership of personal property also prescribes
through uninterrupted possession for eight years,
without need of any other condition.
With regard to the right of the owner to recover
personal property lost or of which he has been
illegally deprived, as well as with respect to
movables acquired in a public sale, fair, or market,
or from a merchant's store the provisions of articles
559 and 1505 of this Code shall be observed.
Article 1133. Movables possessed through a crime
can never be acquired through prescription by the
offender.
When are you in bad faith when you acquired a
movable? So suppose, you were seated at the back,
and then the classmate of yours has this iPhone 7.
And you lost all your money at MTS, the Duterte
country *joking*, you were so drunk you lost all your
money. So, what will you do? There was this iPhone
of your classmate that was left then kinuha mo and
then saw the RD Pawnshop across, so you pawned it.
How did you acquire it? Through a crime. So can you
acquire it thru prescription? No.
Then you pawned it to RD Pawnshop. And you
(owner) discovered later, when there was already this
auction, kinuha ng isang bidder, ah wala ka na. Can
you (owner) recover it? NO. Because it was acquired
through auction. That s one of the exceptions, fair,
public market. Unless, you bought it directly from the
person who got it then you will be liable criminally by
reason of the anti-fencing law. So that there is no
good faith, there is really bad faith, you really are a
thief.
But, suppose, naiwan sya, uy, may cellphone , tapos
na ang klase, you went back because you left behind
something. Dinala mo. Pero alam mo kung sino ang
may-ari, si Mr. Valera *joking*. But, you nonetheless
did not tell him about it. Are you a thief? Of course
not! Because it was already left behind. And based on
the principle of finders keepers, losers weepers
*JOKING*, iniwan eh so kinuha mo diba? So there is
no theft there diba? But you are in bad faith because
you are aware of who the owner is, so you can
acquire it only after 8 years. But if you have no
knowledge whatsoever, you were the first to come in
and then uy may cellphone , you have no
knowledge, so that s only 4 years. So that s it, when is
there good faith, bad faith, and when is it a crime.
Because theft is commited by taking away, or taking a
thing from the owner without the consent of the
owner. But if you found it, of course, finders keepers,
losers weepers *JOKING* That s not true ha?
Art. 1133 – Movables possessed through a crime
can never be acquired through prescription by the
offender.
This is one of the exceptions that, while it may be
true that objects within the commerce of men may
be the objects of prescription, unless these are
acquired by the person through:
● Fairs, Markets, Auctions = susceptible of
prescription
But not when the possessor acquired it from the
offender himself because that can still never be
acquired through prescription, regardless of the
knowledge that the thing was acquired through theft
because the law does not distinguish.
Art. 1134 – Ownership and other real rights over
immovable property are acquired by ordinary
prescription through possession of 10 years.
There must be good faith, just title, and
possession in the concept of an owner, public,
peaceful, and uninterrupted.
Art. 1135 – In case the adverse claimant possesses
by mistake, an area greater, or less than that
expressed in his title, prescription shall be based on
the possession.
Case: Republic vs CA
Where the area of the property was
increased without the knowledge of the possessor,
and the property was registered under the Torrens
System but nonetheless the court allows the
possessor to have the possession over the increase in
area.
Art. 1136 – Possession in wartime, when the civil
courts are not open, shall be counted in favor of the
adverse claimant.
Art. 1137 – Ownership and other real rights over
immovable also prescribe through uninterrupted
adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without
need of title or of good faith.
Art. 1138 – In the computation of time necessary for
prescription the following rules shall be observed:
1. The present possessor may complete the
period necessary for prescription by tacking
his possession to that of his grantor or
predecessor in interest;
Usually acquired by the courts in cases involving
properties acquired through Homestead.
Now, the Homestead Patent is granted by the
government to possessors of property herein in
Mindanao. That s why there are many vast tracks of
lands owned only by one person, because prior to the
time of Pres. Magsaysay, Mindanao was occupied
only by members of ethnic communities so it is
largely agricultural in nature. To reduce the
population in Luzon and Visayas, what he did was to
try to entice and lure people from those areas to
come to Mindanao. (Land of Promise ☺). So in order
for you to acquire the property, all the possessors
would do is to point anywhere they want to acquire.
And then subsequently, patent will be granted. So,
that is the reason why we have this so called
Homestead Patent. And there is of course a
prohibition.
Suppose the original possessor dies, then the heir will
now succeed to the original possessor, so if he had
already been occupying the property for 5 years, then
that will be tacked in favor of the heir who had
already succeeded the former possessor.
2. It is presumed that the present possessor
who was also the possessor at a previous
time, has continued to be in possession
during the intervening time, unless there is
proof to the contrary.
Presumption: Possession is uninterrupted.
The possessor is presumed to have been occupying
the property possessed without any interruption. For
as long as he is found in the property, the
presumption is that he had been in possession in the
property for continuous number of years, and that
would allow him to acquire the property by
acquisitive prescription.
Burden of proof:
Lies on the party that would now allege that the
possession of the possessor is interrupted either
naturally, or civilly.
3. The first day shall be excluded and the last
day included.
Based on Art. 13 of CC – That is in counting the
period, exclude the first day and include the last day.
PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS
Art. 1139 – Actions prescribe by mere lapse of time
fixed by law.
Art. 1140 – Actions to recover movables shall
prescribe eight years from the time the possession
thereof is lost, unless the possessor has acquired the
ownership by prescription for a less period,
according to articles 1132, and without prejudice to
the provisions of articles 559. 1505, and 1133.
Art. 1141 – Real actions over immovable prescribe
after thirty years. This provision is without prejudice
to what is established for the acquisition of
ownership and other real rights prescription.
Art. 1142 – A mortgage action prescribes after 10
years.
A mortgage is actually an accessory obligation. The
principal obligation is the loan.
It s just like when you pledge your ring to a
pawnshop, the pledge is merely an accessory
obligation, you pledge it to secure the principal
obligation consisting in a sum of money. The reason
why it is secured because in the event of the failure
of the debtor to pay the obligation, the creditor has
the right to foreclose the mortgage.
Other example:
SUPPOSE, the obligation has long been outstanding.
The agreement between the creditor and the debtor
is for the debtor to pay the principal obligation within
a period of 10 years. But there were defaults, so what
he did is to enter into a restructuring agreement
respecting the principal obligation, but the creditor
had forgotten about the mortgage, which may be a
real estate mortgage or a chattel but the principal
obligation has already been running for about 15
years. Now suppose on the 13th year, the obligor
again defaulted in the performance of the obligation,
so the creditor wants to foreclose the mortgage. Can
he? NO, because the action to foreclose had already
prescribed. He is only given 10 years to foreclose the
mortgage.
Mortgage:
May be real estate mortgage (real properties or
immovable) or a chattel mortgage (movables) and if it
is delivered it becomes a pledge because in a
mortgage, the mortgagor (debtor) retains possession
of the property mortgage, what is only delivered to
the mortgagee (creditor) would be the title but
annotated therein is the loan obligation. With respect
to the vehicle, there is merely an annotation of the
OR (?) of that vehicle that this is mortgage to this
particular financial institution.
IMPRESCRIPTIBLE
Art. 1143 – The following rights, among others
specified elsewhere in this Code, are not
extinguished by prescription:
1. To demand a right of way
Example:
SUPPOSE, the property owned by X is located near
the highway while the property of Y is situated at the
back of X s property. If he were to go to the highway,
he has to travel quite some time for him to reach it,
and the easiest way for him is to ask from X a road
right of way, but the law does not simply grant. The
right of way must be such that it will cause the least
prejudice to the servient estate. He is called the
servient estate (X) because it is he who gives in to the
demand of the dominant estate. Dominant estate (Y)
is the one who demands for the road right of way. So
the action does not prescribe. (Naa daw case
assigned ani guys).
2. Abatement of public or private nuisance.
Public nuisance
Example:
There were so many constructions made by the
DPWH, like canals, roads, etc., but there there s no
problem in Davao because it is immediately attended
to by DPWH, but if go you to Manila, there are
several constructions there especially on canals that
had been left unattended by the DPWH. On some of
this are quite deep as to cause risks to the life and
limb of the public in general.
SUPPOSE it rained so hard, and the area is flooded.
Accidentally, X fell to that area and drowned but was
rescued, X can demand damages from the contractor.
But when it shall become public nuisance? If that will
be long outstanding, like it had been standing there
unfinished for about 6 months, then it might become
a breeding place of mosquitos and we know very well
that it carries viruses, and then of course, children
playing near the area would be facing the danger of
being drowned if that place is already water lad. This
instance can be abated. As a citizen, all you have to
do is to go to DPWH or LGU and make necessary
complaint as to warrant the immediate attention that
must be given to it.
Private nuisance –
Suppose you live in a middle-class subdivision, and
because your wife wants to earn money, she opened
a portion of the house as an eatery during day time
and bar during nighttime. It is purely residential, so
the purpose of the place is for the residence to sleep
soundly at night and undisturbed, but the trouble
came when the bar was opened because of the
videoke. Can you abate this? YES!
Art. 1144 – The following actions must be brought
within ten years from the time the right of action
accrues:
1. Upon a written contract;
When there is an agreement between the parties but
there is no stipulation as to when shall the action if
there is a breach in the stipulation of the contract. So
the law provides that it shall be brought within 10
years.
2. Upon an obligation created by law;
Example: Implied trust
X wanted to buy the property of Y. Unfortunately, X
does not have the money. So he told he s bestfriend
A, that he wanted to buy the property of Y but he
doesn t have a money. So A will provide the money,
provided that the title thereto shall be in A s name,
but the real agreement is that it is a monetary
obligation. So what happens there is that, the
property that was supposedly bought by the debtor
(X), and supposed to be registered in his name, is
now registered in the name of a friend who lend the
money.
Obligation created by law shall also prescribe in 10
years. What would be an obligation that is created by
law? Not taxes because taxes is a different
prescription. Suppose you are interested in buying a
particular parcel of land, but you do not have the
money. So you go to a friend who has the money.
(You told your friend that I need money because) can
I borrow money from you because I want to buy this
particular property only that I don t have the money.
Your friend agreed, but part of the agreement was
half the title of the property will be registered in my
name. But the truth is, based on the agreement is
that the property is owned by the one who borrowed
the money from the friend. That is an example of an
implied trust. So that will prescribe in 10 years. What
is an implied trust? If you want to know more you can
read trust, that is part of obligations and contracts.
3. Upon a judgment.
Refers to the judgment of the court.
This would refer to a judgment rendered by the court
that has become final and executory. Now the
judgment creditor, in order for the satisfaction of the
judgment shall be made, has to file a motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution that would lead now
to a way for the satisfaction of a judgment credit. The
winner in a civil case, this does not involve criminal
cases, because obligation and contracts would only
refer to civil actions. Suppose the judgment creditor
did not do anything about the decision or judgment
that has long become final and executory. At the time
the decision was entered by the court and there was
no appeal made by the other party. So he has 10
years within which to have the judgment rendered by
the court to be executed by the sheriff.
Art. 1145. The following actions must be
commenced within six years:
(1) Upon an oral contract;
(2) Upon a quasi-contract. (n)
If you have already read Ainza v. Padua, that s a
perfect example of an oral contract.
Quasi-contract. This would refer to negotiorum gestio
or solutio indebiti. Negotiorum gestio refers to the
inofficious manager, in the local language buot-buot
ka. If you have a neighbor, and the house is
uninhabited because the neighbor had gone abroad,
and you don t want thieves or robbers to be entering
the house. What you will do is to switch on the light
as soon as dusk
because the neighbor has a beautiful daughter whose
complexion is not fair by reason of glutathione,
whose nose is not fixed by rhinoplasty but is really
more aquiline nose. And whose body is as beautiful
as Ms. Kylie Versoza without the intervention of Belo.
So she really is what you desire, you really want to
spend life her. So in order to impress the future
mother-in-law, you take out the garbage, sweep the
yard because there are so many leaves, you water the
orchids the favorite of your future mother-in-law.
Where you authorized, of course not, you can even
be sued for trespassing. But that is an example of
negotiorum gestio. There is no contract between the
parties. But suppose when they arrive Uy, ang linis-
linis ng bahay, pati yung mga window panes ang
linis. Ay ma a kasi a o… Ay hijo, ang bait bait
o talaga, pu ta ka dito kasi a o… You see, this
early you re already a step closer to the heart of the…
Later on a subsequent period, going somewhere
again, no one is attending the house. And she would
now tell you Hijo, pwede anuhin mo yung bahay.
That is all changed, from without any contract
whatsoever, it becomes a contract of agency. You are
already authorized. So you see, from the first. But
suppose the neighbor did not agree with what you
did, kasi namatay lahat yung orchids. So yun, you can
be sued for damages. The action must be brought
within 6 years.
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted
within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;
However, when the action arises from or out of any
act, activity, or conduct of any public officer
involving the exercise of powers or authority arising
from Martial Law including the arrest, detention
and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same must be
brought within one (1) year. (As amended by PD No.
1755, Dec. 24, 1980.)
Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff. An
example of this would be an action for reinstatement
by reason of illegal dismissal. And one of the cases
assigned to you is a perfect example of 1146. So if
one is illegally dismissed but the NLRC found out that
such indeed is true, and there is this reinstatement.
The basis for that would be 1146, upon an injury to
the rights of the plaintiff. So this must be brought
within 4 years.
Upon a quasi-delict. Where this is based on
negligence or reckless imprudence, diba katangahan.
So better be buang than tanga kasi walang cure ang
katangahan.
Art. 1147. The following actions must be filed within
one year:
(1) For forcible entry and detainer;
(2) For defamation. (n)
Forcible entry and detainer. Do you remember the
case of Waeyan? 147, si Juliet. Diba, the court said
that it was error on the man to sue the woman for
unlawful detainer because they were living together
as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage
and there was nonpayment because what the woman
did is to buy the share of the man. But per
memorandum of agreement,
there was no payment of the purchase price. So what
he is to file an ejectment case against Juliet. So the
court said it is error on the part of the man to file an
action for ejectment because they are co-owners
over the property. So a perfect example of that will
be for detainer is supposed you are engaged in the
business of renting out houses or apartments. In the
agreement, in the event of any violation of any of the
terms and conditions of the contract of lease, would
be a ground for the termination of the contract. And
then the lessee violated the terms and conditions
thereof, but despite notice or demand to vacate the
lessee refused to vacate. So you have to sue, you file
a case against the other party – lessee for ejectment
because he had detained the property. So you have
to bring that within one year.
Forcible entry. Yung pumasok through [inaudible],
that is defined by the rules of court.
Defamation. Defamation is different from libel kasi
ang libel is mahaba. So when is there defamation?
Like when you are slapped, that is an example of
defamation. It is slander by deed.
Art. 1148. The limitations of action mentioned in
Articles 1140 to 1142, and 1144 to 1147 are without
prejudice to those specified in other parts of this
Code, in the Code of Commerce, and in special laws.
(n)
So Code of Commerce when we talk of contracts,
may be on negotiable instruments.
Art. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not
fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought
within five years from the time the right of action
accrues. (n)
The perfect example under 1149 will be article 86 of
your family code respecting revocation of donation
propter nuptias. Where the law is silent as to when
may the donor revoke the donation by reason of
marriage, this is the appropriate provision. Bringing
the action within 5 years from the time the right of
action accrues.
Art. 1150. The time for prescription for all kinds of
actions, when there is no special provision which
ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the day
they may be brought. (1969)
If we talk of fraud for consent under marriage. Your
consent is vitiated by reason of fraud you don t
immediately bring it at the time of the celebration of
the marriage. Isn t it? When do you bring the action?
From the time of discovery of the fraud. If we talk of
vitiation of consent other than fraud like intimidation,
force, violence, when do you bring the action? From
the time of the cessation of any of the vices of
consent. Because if it is a continuing one, like there is
violence O sige, makigbulag ka sa akua, patayon
nako akong sarili. There is no cessation yet of the
vitiation.
The reason you entered into the marriage is because
of the threat that the other party would commit
suicide, so that s still vitiation. The accounting of the
period does not mean that as soon as the marriage is
celebrated you have to bring the action. You bring
the action after the cessation.

Art. 1151. The time for the prescription of actions
which have for their object the enforcement of
obligations to pay principal with interest or annuity
runs from the last payment of the annuity or of the
interest. (1970a)
Monetary obligations will prescribe in 10 years. When
there is partial payment, there is tolling of the
prescriptive period. It will only start as soon as there
is no performance of the obligation. Even if what you
receive is only 10 pesos for a 1 million loan, the fact
that you accepted it without protest means that the
prescriptive period has tolled by your acceptance of
the payment. Do you understand? So if there is no
payment despite demand, that will be the time for
you to start counting the 10-year period. Despite the
demand – you have to make a demand because the
law requires needed extrajudicial demand (means
extra-judicial demand in writing). If you make only an
oral demand, that will not stop the running of the
period. What would stop the running of the period is
the extra-judicial demand and of course when you
accept the payment despite the fact that the
payment is not sufficient to cover the obligation. It is
a waiver on your right because you have, under the
law, payment shall not be understood unless it is the
entire obligation that is supposed to be rendered. But
there is of course the principle of estoppel and
waiver. So it is as if you have waived your right to
demand the exact amount that is supposed to be
performed. It does not mean that the period
continues, it is tolled.
Art. 1152. The period for prescription of actions to
demand the fulfillment of obligation declared by a
judgment commences from the time the judgment
became final. (1971)
Art. 1152 refers to obligations where there is already
judgment rendered. This would refer to the judgment
creditor. So the judgment becomes final, that is when
you can demand performance of the obligation based
on the decision rendered by the court and you were
declared the judgment creditor.
When we talk of the period, as soon as the judgment
becomes final. When shall the judgment becomes
final? When there is no appeal made by either of the
parties. No appeal made within the 15-day period,
because it is the only period given by the rules of
court. If there s no appeal within the 15-day period,
then the judgment becomes final and executory. And
that is when you start counting the 10-year period on
the judgment. You remember we discussed on what
must be brought within 10 years – on judgment. So
yan.
Article 1158. Obligations derived from law
Obligations derived from law are not presumed;
only those expressly determined in this Code or in
special laws are demandable and shall be regulated
by the law that establishes them and to what has
not been foreseen by the provisions of this Book.
Example:
1. The payment of taxes. The law itself provides that
you have to pay your taxes for those income earned
the year before on the 15th of April the following
year. In fact, there is no need for the State to make a
demand; you are to pay your taxes as specified by the
law itself otherwise there will be penalty. So, that is
an obligation that is immediately demandable upon
the arrival of the period. There is no need for a
demand for the debtor to incur in delay. Delay begins
as soon as you do not pay on the dates as specified.
2. Obligations on support. The Family Code provides
who are those obliged to support each other. In the
case of Lim vs. Lim, Cheryl is not entitled to receive
support from the in-law because the obligation to
give support is only between those who are related
by consanguinity; Cheryl is a relative by affinity and
therefore Cheryl can only demand support from the
husband because the law itself provides that the
husband and the wife are obliged to support each
other. In the case of Badwell ,he said that I cannot
be obliged to give support to the child because my
marriage had been terminated by divorce. Based on
the law of Netherlands, there is no obligation on the
father to provide support to the child when the
marriage is terminated. The only reason why he was
compelled to give support to the child is not based on
his law on the Netherlands, but because of his failure
to prove the existence of the law of his country. And
thus, we follow the provisions of the Family Code. So
the basis of that would be the law.
Article 1159. Obligations arising from contracts
Autonomy of will- the parties are free to stipulate
any conditions or terms provided that they are not
contrary to law, morals, public order or public policy.
That s the only requirement. But they are free to
stipulate anything; that would be the law between
the contracting parties. It s not the provisions of the
Civil Code. It is their stipulation that would govern the
contract or the agreement that they have entered
into. The exception to this is on the payment of
Attorney s fees because that will always be subject to
the authority of the court where if it is a very simple
case of collection of sum of money, and the parties to
the agreement arrived at a possible amicable
settlement without resorting to a full-blown trial, the
lawyer is not entitled if the attorney s fees is so much
as to impoverish the client. Then the court will
mitigate the amount of the attorney s fees. The basis
now would be on how much he have rendered his
services as well as his name; is he the campanilla or
the campana? So if you are the campanilla, the
bigger the attorney s fees. And of course, the court
will now lower the attorney s fees and the basis of
which will be quantum meruit. So the attorney s fees
is not covered by 1159. The lawyer can be disbarred if
he would insist.
Article 1160 Civil obligations derived from quasi-
contracts
Obligations derived from quasi-contracts shall be
subject to the provisions of Chapter 1, Title XVII of
this Code. There are ny two types of quasi-contracts
studied under Credit transactions: Negotiorum gestio
and Solutio indebiti
Article 1161 Civil obligations arising from criminal
offenses
The basic principle that a person who has committed
a crime is civilly liable under Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code: That every person who is
criminally liable is also civilly liable . There are two
kinds of action that may be instituted: Dependent
and Independent civil actions. Dependent civil actions
are deemed impliedly instituted in criminal
proceedings that it can be filed separately if the
offended party would choose to make a reservation
or does not intend to pursue the civil action. The
offender must make the reservation before the
prosecution starts to present its evidence. Suppose
the offended party would choose to file ahead the
civil action, the civil case would be suspended. What
if he would choose to file after the filing of the
criminal proceedings? Again, the civil action would be
suspended to await for the resolution of the criminal
proceedings that is why it is called a dependent civil
action because the basis of the civil action is the very
act or omission itself that is punishable by the
Revised Penal Code. In fact, if the offended party
would choose to institute it later, the court may order
that the two cases be consolidated. In independent
civil actions, you do not have to make reservations.
These are actions that would be filed separately from
the criminal proceedings that shall proceed
regardless of the result of the latter. One is Article 31
where the civil action is not based on the act or
omission complained of as a felony but from other
sources of obligation and which would require only a
mere preponderance of evidence. Article 32 on
violation of one s Constitutional rights, Article 33 on
cases of defamation, fraud or physical injuries and
Article 34 when a member of a city or municipal
police force refuses or fails to render aid or
protection to any person in case of danger to life or
property without just cause. These are the only
crimes where the law grants an independent civil
action.
Article 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts
There is no contractual relations between the parties
in quasi-delicts.
Article 1163
In an obligation to give, the object of the prestation
may consist in the delivery of a determinate/specific
object or an indeterminate/generic object. Genus
nunquam perit; because it a genum it can always be
replaced but not a determinate object. Example, in
case of car, al, you have to do is give the motor
number or the plate number, so it becomes a specific
object. Now, if the obligation is to be performed a
later day although there was already a perfected
obligation between the parties, there are three
incidental obligations on the part of the obligor. One
is prior to the delivery, he has to observe the
diligence of a good father of a family, in the absence
of any agreement to the contrary because the parties
may agree that the degree of diligence would be
extraordinary diligence. Extraordinary diligence
normally is required involving contracts of
transportation, common carriers, public utility
jeepneys or the public utility buses. They are to
observe extraordinary diligence in transporting their
passengers. But in the absence of any agreement,
that s the exception, in common carriers it is always
the extraordinary diligence of a good father of a
family. They cannot agree to a lesser diligence; that
would be void. However, when we talk of ordinary
obligations, then the parties may agree aside from
the diligence of a good father of a family, that the
parties may only observe slight diligence. But they
cannot agree that no diligence whatsoever shall be
exercised by the debtor; that would be void because
that would be tantamount to waiving your right to
demand damages in the event that there will be
deterioration or damage to the object of the
prestation. Moreover, you cannot also renounce
future fraud. That is also void.
What is diligence of a good father of a family?
It is the ordinary care exercised by an ordinary person
over his property; that no untoward incident shall
suffer to his property; that before he goes to sleep he
would see to it all the doors have been locked, if he
has children, that all children are already in the
house. In the example, where the place is flood-
prone and there is already a warning from PAG-ASA
that there will be heavy rains, the best thing for the
debtor to do is to move the vehicle to a place where
no flooding shall occur.
Three types of fruits: natural, industrial and civil. So
what right has the creditor over the fruits prior to
delivery? That is merely a personal right which he can
only enforce against the party with whom he had
entered into a contract with. Thus it cannot be
enforced against a third person who is not a party to
the contract because of the absence of privity
between the creditor and the third person. In the
case of civil fruits that there was this rent, the
contract of lease is just between the debtor and the
third person. When we go to the relativity of
contracts, that contracts as general rule bind only the
parties. Third persons, generally cannot be bound by
the contracts especially if the right of the creditor is
merely a personal right. But if the obligation to
deliver arises, and the debtor now delivers the object
of the prestation, the right of the creditor ceases to
be a personal right. It becomes a real right;
enforceable against the whole world. By reason of
that, he can now sue the third persons because his
right over it has become a real right. Any third person
who would prejudice his right, can be made now
liable for damages.
What is the significance of delivery? It is delivery that
transfers ownership. Delivery might be actual or
constructive. So when we say actual, there really is an
exchange of the parties between the object of the
prestation that is supposed to be given to the
creditor then on the other hand, what is to be given
to the debtor. Constructive, one is Traditio Symbolica.
Another is, Traditio Brevi manu, it is by the
shorthand- when the possessor who is not the owner
becomes the owner. Traditio longa manu, in the long
hand, the owner becomes the lessee. So it is delivery
that transfers ownership not the mere act of entering
into a contract, it is delivery. So if we talk about the
concept of land, Traditio symbolica, the contract that
would now give the buyer to have it and the title
transferred to his name that is how one should
deliver. So it might be constructive or it might be
actual. Another obligation to the part of the debtor is
to deliver the accessions and the accessories.
Accessions include the fruit because under the law on
property, accessory is defined differently. Accession
likewise is defined differently because a house is an
accession industrial such as, building and planting. So
the house is considered a building but the general
rule is that a house is actually an accessory under the
law on property. So the accession in 1166 refers only
to accession continual that would include accession
industrial. Accession natural, alluvium is the perfect
example that a soil gradually deposited by time. Is
avulsion included? By taking away of a portion of land
is avulsion. If you have read the newspapers right
earth quake struck New Zealand. The mountain was
in a massive land slide that is avulsion because the
taking away of the land is by force but if it is gradually
deposited, it is alluvium. Suppose the particular
parcel of land occupied by the cows were transferred
to another property, he does not own it because the
occurrence of the transfer is not through gradual
deposit. It is the tearing away of portion of land from
another property by virtue of a force. In that
particular case the earthquake did it. So the owner of
the property where it was deposited will not become
the owner of that particular land. For example, the
painting is the principal and the wall or the canvass
and the painting is the accessory. What would be the
right or what are the rights accorded to the creditor if
the debtor does not comply without obligation, of
course it determinate then he can compel
performance or it might be a third person who would
perform the obligation in the expense of the debtor.
If it is determinate, specific performance because
that cannot be replaced with another and then
damages by reason of the land performance. It refers
to delay respecting non fulfillment of the obligation
or there is a default on the part of the debtor to
comply with the obligation. So this is not used in its
grammatical sense. In 1169, so when shall the obligor
incur in delay? From that time that demand is made
whether judicial or extra-judicial. There is judicial
demand when the case is filed in court and
extrajudicial when it is the debtor or the creditor
himself or the lawyer of the creditor who would not
write to the debtor fulfillment of the obligation and
there are of course instances where demand is no
longer necessary in order that the obligor shall be
in delay. One is by stipulation of the parties. So if the
obligation provides the fulfillment of a penalty on top
of the interests that even if it is not stated there and
it is not expressly provided but in as much the
contract provides for the payment of the penalty
upon the nonpayment of the obligation then the
penalty is already incurred. There is no need for a
demand that is one of the exception by stipulation of
the parties even if it is not clearly stipulated in the
contract. Interest based on the balance, there is no
need for the obligor to make a demand, to place the
debtor in delay, but if it is payable on installments
and the failure of the debtor to pay two installments
would make the entire obligation due and
demandable delay cannot occur by reason of the
failure to pay the installments due. There must still
be a demand to place the obligor to in delay. That is
not the stipulation that is within the meaning of no
need for a demand or a reason of a stipulation. Only
that the entire obligation becomes due and
demandable. But not that the obligor is already
considered in delay without the demand. Demand is
still necessary. And of course there were two, like the
nonpayment of taxes. If you do not pay the taxes due
at the date specified by the law then it incurs already
a penalty of 25% interest. So from the nature of the
circumstances of the obligation it appears that the
resignation of the time and the thing is to be
delivered on the service to be rendered was
controlling motive for the establishment of the
contract.
Art. 1165. When what is to be delivered is a
determinate thing, the creditor, in addition to the
right granted him by Article 1170, may compel the
debtor to make the delivery.
If the thing is indeterminate or generic, he may ask
that the obligation be complied with at the expense
of the debtor.
If the obligor delays, or has promised to deliver the
same thing to two or more persons who do not have
the same interest, he shall be responsible for any
fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery.
(1096)
1165 refers to the recourse of the creditor when
there is no non-fulfillment of the obligation. If it is
specific or determinate and the debtor does not
comply with what is incumbent upon him then the
creditor may seek fulfillment of the obligations
through the court – action for specific performance.
Note: if the thing due is specific it cannot be replaced
by another thing because there is only one specific
thing. If the obligation is to give a generic object still
the debtor did not comply with the obligation then
that can be done by a third person or the creditor
himself at the expense of the debtor with damages.
If the obligor delays, or has promised to deliver the
same thing to two or more persons who do not have
the same interest, he shall be responsible for any
fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery
This refers to a specific object but the obligor
promised to deliver the very same thing to another
person who doesn t have the same interest. When
shall two person can be considered as having the
same interest? –Co-owners or husband and wife bit if
the third person is a complete stranger he does not
have the same interest and if the obligor promised to
both he will incur in delay with respect to the other.
Take note that there are two or more persons that
the obligor promised t deliver the same object so he
will be liable for damages and in case of fortuitous
event the obligor shall be liable because that will not
excuse him from the performance of the obligation
because there is no extinguishment of obligation by
reason of fortuitous event because he had already
incurred delay when he promised the delivery of the
very same thing two or more persons who does not
have the same interest.
Accesions; refer only to accession natural and
accession industrial, it does not include accession
continua.
Accession Natural: example, gradual deposit of soil
along river, the owner would be the owner of the
property nearest to it but he has to apply for the
titling over the land deposited by time.
Accessories: the one destined for embellishment,
completion. (e.g Car: engine is the principal, keys is
the accessories)
- Accession Continua- refers to fruits covered by 1164
where the debtor is obliged not only to deliver the
very thing due but also the fruits thereof. Precisely, if
there is no delivery yet the right of the creditor over
the fruits is merely a personal right and he can only
enforce the same against the debtor and not against
a thirdperson because of the absence of privity
between the creditor and the third person. Once the
delivery was made the principal and the fruits
becomes a real right becomes enforceable to the
whole world. It is delivery which transfers ownership
which could be an actual delivery or constructive
delivery. In an actual delivery there is exchange of
prestation on the part of the seller and on the part of
the buyer to deliver the purchase price because this is
one bilateral reciprocal agreement ( there is
unilateral reciprocal: donations).
Art. 1168. When the obligation consists in not doing,
and the obligor does what has been forbidden him,
it shall also be undone at his expense. (1099a)
e.g. When a hairstylist is instructed not to cut your
hair but he cut it can he undo? No
The hairstylist shall be liable for damages.
Article 1169. 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.
The demand would be useless when the
obligor has rendered it beyond his power to perform
like it has been lost so it is already impossible to
perform on the part of the obligor and thus is already
considered to be in delay and is liable for damages.
The purpose why the debtor has to be placed in delay
is for the payment of damages. It is not only the
obligor who can be in delay. It is also the creditor
who can be in delay. On the part of the obligor, one is
considered to be in mora solvendi. If it is the creditor
who refuses to accept without justifiable cause and
what is delivered is the very thing due and the
obligation is already due and demandable, then the
creditor is considered to be in mora accipiendi. So, he
will be liable for damages, the debtor will not be
liable for the deterioration of the thing that is the
object of the prestation unless it has deteriorated by
reason of the fraud or negligence of the debtor. If it
earns interest, the interest stops at the time when
there is already performance of the obligation that
was refused by the creditor. And then, of course, to
relieve himself from the obligation, he can always
consign it in accordance with Article 1256 on tender
of payment and consignation because if there was
prior tender but was refused, it should be followed by
consignation to extinguish the obligation.
But there is what you call as compensation
morae. Compensatio Morae is present on reciprocal
obligation.
Q: When is there a reciprocal obligation?
A: It arises from the same cause when the parties are
mutually creditor and debtor of each other such that
the performance of one is conditioned on the
performance by the other. As soon as performance is
made by one of the parties and the other did not,
delay by the latter begins.
But in reciprocal obligation, the absence
generally of any agreement by the parties, it is to be
performed simultaneously. Or what we call as
kaliwaan. Pag bigay, bigay din ang isa unless there is a
contrary agreement between the parties. And that if
one of the parties who perform his part, delivers the
titles to the land, as well as documents related
thereto, the seller already delivered the land as well
as the title thereto and the buyer did not pay the
purchase price, the delay by the other begins.
So I have said before that respecting
obligations whereby an agreement to pay in
installments and there is a stipulation that
nonperformance or nondelivery of two installments
will now make the obligation due and demandable
does not mean that demand may be dispensed with,
there must be the element to place the obligor in
delay even there is that particular stipulation
between the parties. But delay may be waived by the
creditor, he can always waive. Default has already
occurred so he will be waiving the right to claim
damages on the part of the debtor or on the part of
the creditor.
Q: So how is it waived?
A: By demanding performance without any prayer for
damages.
Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay,
and those who in any manner contravene the tenor
thereof, are liable for damages.
Now you remember the damages that may
be recovered by the aggrieved party? What have you
learned in the Persons and Family Relations?
Just remember MENTAL: Moral, Exemplary,
Nominal, Temperate, Actual and Liquidated. So those
are the damages that may be demanded by the
aggrieved party.
Now, FRAUD. Now, Fraud here is fraud
employed at the time of the performance of the
obligation which merely gives rise to damages not for
the rescission or the cancellation of the contract
because if it would refer to fraud employed at the
time of the creation of the obligation that would fall
under Article 1380. Now if it is causal, then it can be a
ground for rescission plus damages. Here, the fraud
was employed at the time of the performance of the
obligation and merely is a ground for damages.
Example is suppose you brought a pair of rings ,
wedding rings from Mr. Yu, he said it is a 24-karat
gold but actually it was just merely what you call it
Mr. Yu? Mr. Yu: Gold-plated? Ahh. Gold-plated lang
pala sya! So you can hold him liable for damages
because it is at the time of the performance of the
obligation.
Negligence would refer to fault respecting
the performance of the obligation, Culpa Contractual.
Delay of course is 1169 and contravention in the
tenor of the obligation are liable for damages.
Article 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is
demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an
action for future fraud is void.
Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence
in the performance of every kind of obligation is also
demandable, but such liability may be regulated by
the courts, according to the circumstances.
Now the basis for contractual obligations
would be the master-servant rule, relationship
between the employer and the employee. Now culpa
aquiliana, the basis of course would be negligence or
reckless imprudence but what would be the defense
of the party from whom damages is demanded?
Diligence of a good father of a family. What about
criminal with respect to the employer and the
employee? The guilt of the employee is the civil guilt
of the employer. Yan ang basis ng damages. That is
why if by reason of the act of the driver. The driver is
sued for homicide or murder depending on the
circumstances. So the liability of the operator is
based on the criminal guilt of the employee.
Q: What are the sources of culpa according to the
source of obligation?
A: Based on contract.
Q: Can it be based on the contract when there is no
agreement by the parties?
A: Yes. There are 2 cases decided by the SC. The first
is the Carrascoso case involving Filipino holding a first
class ticket, Air France, but was forced to sit in the
economy section of the plane and sue Air France for
tort. Of course, the defense raised by Air France was
that, it should be based on contract because there is
contractual relation between the passenger and the
airline. It is covered by the contract of carriage. But
the SC said No the act that breaks the contract may
be the source of tort . So the airline is liable for
damages.
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor
consists in the omission of that diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons,
of the time and of the place. When negligence
shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and
2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence
which is to be observed in the performance, that
which is expected of a good father of a family shall
be required.
If you talk of common carriage, diligence is
extraordinary. But ordinary contracts is covered by, in
the absence of any agreement to the contrary,
diligence of a good father of a family. If the law or
contract does not state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance that which is expected
of a good father of a family shall be required. So
according to circumstances of persons and if you are
BPO worker assigned during the graveyard shift, are
you supposed to sleep? No because the
circumstances so warrant by the nature of your job,
you ought to be awake despite the fact that you are
supposed to be sleeping at that particular time.
Article 1174. 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.
Q: What is the general rule in the occurrence of a
fortuitous event?
A: The general rule is that no person shall be
responsible for those event which cannot be foreseen
or which though foreseen is inevitable. So as a
general rule, no one can be held liable if the
obligation becomes impossible by reason of a
fortuitous event subject to the following exceptions:
expressly specified by law. Taxes. When it is declared
by stipulation. When the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk. Perfect example of
this is? Common carriers. Or this is what you call the
doctrine of created risk. They assume the risk in
relation to the kind of business that they have
entered into because immediately the presumption if
the transportation company is unable to deliver the
passengers safely to the destination, immediately the
presumption arises that there is a negligence on the
part of the transportation company. It is now the
obligation of the transportation company to overturn
that presumption. It is not the obligation of the
passenger to prove that there was negligence.
Immediately the presumption arises because one
who creates a dangerous situation cannot escape
liability even if the act of God.
Q: Is a mechanical failure of the brake considered to
be an Act of God?
A: No because you are supposed to inspect the
vehicle before driving it.
Q: Suppose it was hit by lightning and it was running
very fast, Act of God parin? What are the exceptions?
Aside from what is enumerated here? A: If the
obligation consist in the delivery of a generic object.
If the Act of God concurs with the negligence of the
obligor. If he is already in delay. When the obligation
consist in the delivery of a thing arising from a
criminal offense. The only exceptions there if the
person who receive it refuses to accept it without just
cause.
All rights may be transmitted except those that are
purely personal.
Art. 1179. Every obligation whose performance does
not depend upon a future or uncertain event, or
upon a pat event unknown to the parties, is
demandable at once
Every obligation which contains a resolutory
condition shall also be demandable, without
prejudice to the effects of the happening of the
event.
Pure and Conditional Obligations
Every obligation which performance does not depend
upon a future or uncertain event or upon a past
event unknown to the parties is demandable at once.
Pure- if there are no conditions attached to it.
Immediately demandable.
Obligation subject to a resolutory condition-
obligation is still immediately demandable even if
subject to certain conditions
-obligation is extinguished as soon as the condition is
complied with
-example: contract of sale on installment; the non-
payment of the purchase price by the buyer will give
rise to the right of the seller to cancel the contract of
sale; negative resolution condition
-illustrative case: CPU vs CA
Reason for immediate demandability: risk on the part
of the creditor in abusing the object of the prestation
once the condition is complied with
Example: ART. 86 of the Family Code- grounds for
revoking donations propter nuptials; one is when it is
subject to a resolutory condition and the condition
has been complied with:
I will giver you a house and lot if you will not
separate from your spouse
Condition and term/period are both characterized by
futurity
Condition- uncertain
Term- certain, just don t know when
-example: payment of taxes
Obligation subject to a suspensive condition-the
happening of the condition gives rise to the
fulfillment of the obligation
-there must be first the realization of the condition
before the performance of the obligation
-example: contract to sell; payment of purchase price
is a positive suspensive condition
Art. 1180. When the debtor binds himself to pay
when his means permit him to do so, the obligation
shall be deemed to be one with a period, subject to
the provisions of Art. 1197.
If the obligation would provide a stipulation that the
performance of the obligation by the debtor shall be
made as soon as he has the means to do so, the
obligations is NOT. It is with a Period.
permit him to do so , when I can afford it , as
soon as I have the money , when my means would
permit me , I ll pay you little by little , a when the
debtor is in the position to discharge the obligation -
ALL REFERES TO THE PERIOD
If the stipulation is any of the above provided, can the
creditor demand for the fulfillment of the obligation?
No.
Any demand made by the creditor without the period
being fixed is premature.
General Rule: any demand made by the creditor upon
the debtor without the period having been fixed
pursuant to Art 1197, demand is premature.
Exception: when the fixing of the period would serve
other purpose except for further delay of the
performance of the obligation; obligation has long
been outstanding and no period has been fixed.
The Court will be the one to fix the period. Once it is
agreed upon, the Court can no longer change it, but
the parties can.
Art. 1181. In conditional obligations, the acquisition
of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of
those already acquired, shall depend upon the
happening of the event which constitutes the
condition.
Refers to either resolutory or suspensive.
Potestative condition- the fulfillment of the condition
depends upon the sole will of the debtor. VOID
-example: contract of lease will continue as long as
the lessee will pay the rents due ; I will pay you as
soon as I can sell the house
Once condition is void, the entire obligation is void.
Obligation is converted into a pure obligation and is
already due and demandable.
The obligation is still valid even if it is potestative on
the part of the debtor but subject to a resolutory
condition.
-reason: obligations subject to a resolutory condition
are immediately due and demandable
Potestative resolutely example: I will pay you the
obligation if you will not separate from your wife
If it depends upon the will of the creditor, by chance,
or will of a third person – obligation is valid and shall
take effect in conformity with the provisions of the
Code.
Impossible condition- when shall it annul? [it does
not nullify, merely annuls]
-only when the fulfillment of the obligation would
depend upon the impossible condition and when the
impossibility exists at the time of the creation of the
obligation.
Even if it becomes possible at the time that the
obligation is to be performed, it cannot cure the
defect.
If the obligation is divisible, the part thereof which is
not affected by the impossible condition shall be valid
Impossibility may be physical or juridical
Physical if it is contrary to the law of nature.
Ex: Marrying Cinderella
Juridical/legal if there is a law prohibiting it
Ex: Firecracker ban
If valid at the time of the creation of the obligation
but becomes impossible by reason of a supervening
event, it will not affect the validity of the obligation
Example: A contract was entered on November 23,
2015 wherein you are to paint a landscape of
Christchurch (as it is on November 23, 2015) on
November 23, 2016.
Unfortunately, on November 21, 2016, an earthquake
happened and the area was damaged. Hence the
obligation becomes impossible.
Art. 1183. Impossible conditions, those contrary to
good customs or public policy and those prohibited
by law shall annul the obligation which depends
upon them. If the obligation is divisible, that part
thereof which is not affected by the impossible or
unlawful condition shall be valid.
Impossibility may be by reason of logical or physical
impossibility or it might be by reason of juridical or
legal impossibility. So if you talk of logical or physical,
it would be contrary to the law of man or nature. So i
said the example of that is marrying Cinderella in the
fairytale Cinderella. Or it is against the law, it is
juridical or legal. The obligation is to smoke in public
places in Davao--that is an impossible condition that
will fall under juridical impossibility.
But when shall the obligation be annulled by reason
of impossible condition? If the obligation depends
upon the impossible condition because if it does not
depend on the impossible condition, then the
obligation shall subsist., and remember that the
impossibility must be present at the time of the
creation on the obligation because if it is merely a
supervening event, that will not affect the validity of
the obligation. The obligation shall subsist.
Q: But what will happen to the obligation if there is
partial impossibility because of the supervening
event?
A: if it is merely an obligation to do, determine how
long the supervening event lasts because if there is no
definiteness as to when shall it last, then the
obligation is already extinguished. But if there is a
definite duration on the temporary impossibility, then
the obligation shall subsist. Performance is to be
made after the cessation of the temporary
impossibility. (Read 1264). The court shall determine
the partial loss.
If the impossibility was present at the time of the
creation of the obligation but becomes possible, then
the obligation is to be performed that will not cure
the defect. The obligation is still annuled. Just
remember that the performance of the obligation is
to depend on the impossible condition. Because if it is
severable, then the obligation shall sussibt without
the impossible condition.

Art. 1184. The condition that some event happen at
a determinate time shall extinguish the obligation as
soon as the time expires or if it has become
indubitable that the event will not take place.
Art. 1198 – The debtor shall lose every right to make
use of period:
1. When after the obligation has been
contracted, he becomes insolvent, unless he gives a
guaranty or security for the debt;
The first is, when the debtor becomes insolvent,
unless he would give a guaranty or security for the
debt. Meaning, he will execute a real estate mortgage
(a security) or pays someone who becomes a
guarantor. A surety is different from a guarantor.
SURETY GUARANTOR
· Pays when · Pays only if the debtor
the debtor cannot cannot pay and moreover he
pay and will not is wanted the right of
pay. excussion or exhaustion.
· Can always defeat the
· Immediately demand by the creditor by
liable if the saying – you must have first
principal debtor to exhaust all the properties of
does not or will the debtor before you can run
not pay. after me.
2. When he does not furnish to the creditor the
guaranties or securities which he has promised;
Like when he obtained a loan obligation and
guaranteed it or secured it with a real estate
mortgage or if it is one secured with a pledge, but
after obtaining the loan, did not deliver the pledge
(jewelry) for purposes of annotation. Suppose there
was this promise to deliver a pledge (jewelry) to
secure the loan obligation, the debtor in this case
loses the benefit of the period because he did not
deliver the pledge, in effect, instead of giving 4
months to the debtor to redeem the pledge, it
becomes immediately due and demandable since
there is no delivery of pledge. What happens when
the debtor loses the benefit of the period? The
obligation becomes immediately due and
demandable.
There s a difference between a mortgage and a
pledge. A pledge is when you deliver to Mr. Yu any
movable property, in real estate mortgage, there is
delivery of the title which is actually void, but that s
only valid between the parties, it is void because
there can be no pledge of real properties.
3. When by his own acts he has impaired said
guaranties or securities after their establishment,
and when through a fortuitous event they
disappear, unless he immediately gives new ones
equally satisfactory;
Suppose, what was delivered is a house and lot, the
title thereto. So there is that annotation: this was
use as security. But the house and lot was partially
destroyed, through the negligence of the debtor
when there was this brownout and then he lighted a
candle and placed it near the curtain, so it caught fire
and the house was partially damaged. Here, because
deterioration was caused by the fault of the debtor,
he loses immediately the benefit of the period. If the
impairment was through fortuitous event, then the
debtor does not lose the benefit of the. So there s a
difference between impairment by fortuitous event
(debtor does not lose the benefit of the period) but
when it is impaired through the fault of the debtor, it
loses the benefit of the period. If it is impaired
through fortuitous event, he is still entitled to the
benefit of the period because the law requires that
for him to lose the benefit of the period, there must
be total deterioration or destruction of the security
or guaranty.
Exception: Unless he immediately gives new ones
equally satisfactory.
Example: If the house is insured. So there s that
insurance proceeds that would answer for the
security. Thus, you will not lose the benefit of the
period.
4. When the debtor violates any undertaking, in
consideration of which the creditor agreed to the
period;
When he agreed to furnish a bond, a bond is different
from a surety and a guaranty.
Example: if you enter into a construction project you
are to submit a performance bond that would be
forfeited in the event that you will not comply with
the agreement or if you are in delay so much.
5. When the debtor attempts to abscond.
Note: Mere attempt to abscond is already sufficient
to warrant the debtor losing the benefit of the
period.
So Art. 1198 states the grounds of the debtor losing
the benefit of the period, BUT THIS CAN ALWAYS BE
WAIVED BY THE CREDITOR.
ALTERNATIVE OBLIGATIONS
Obligations according to object:
Simple – when there is only one prestation due.
Compound – when there are 2 or more prestations
due further subdivided into conjunctive.
Conjunctive – when there are several prestations due
and all are due.
Disjunctive – one of two or more prestations and it
might be further subdivided to alternative and
facultative.
Alternative – 2 or more prestations are due, and
performance of one is sufficient.
Facultative – only one prestatation is due, but the
debtor may render another in substitute.
Art. 1211. Solidarity may exist although the
creditors and the debtors may not be bound in the
same manner and by the same periods and
conditions.
Scenario: A, B and C are solidarily bound themselves
to pay D,E and F P300,000.
If A, B and C should agree among themselves that
they are jointly bound.Then D,E and F agree among
themselves that they are jointly bound.
If D makes a demand upon C. How much is the
liability of each solidary debtors? Ans: P300,000.
But to each creditor, A is bound to deliver P100,000
each.
If D makes a demand upon C and D collects only
P100,000. Does he have the obligation to share
whatever he has collected from C to E and F? Ans: No
because he collected enough for his share for the
credit because they are merely joint creditors among
themselves. But if D would collect the entire
P300,000. He is obliged to share with the others.
On the other hand, if we talk about debtors who
solidarily bound themselves to the creditors but
among themselves they are jointly bound. If A is
found to be insolvent under the rules on solidary
obligations, B and C s share will increase but because
they agree among themselves that just be jointly
bound then the insolvency of A will not increase the
liability of B and C.
If B pays the entire obligation, A still has to pay B.
That is the effect if they agree that they be bound
differently from the obligation that they have entered
into with the creditors.
Art. 1212. Each one of the solidary creditors may do
whatever may be useful to the others, but not
anything which may be prejudicial to the latter.
So this is a solidary obligation regardless of how much
the solidary creditors would be able to collect from
the solidary debtors, you have to share that with the
other solidary creditors even if it is insufficient to
answer for his own share because the collection is
considered to be beneficial
But not anything prejudicial. What acts is prohibited?
That is answered by 1213.
So even if the creditor assign to an heir or his child
but it is still prohibited because of the absence of
mutual agency of the 3rd person in whose favor the
credit of one was assigned
So mutual agency exist only to the solidary creditors
but does not extend to the heirs unless consent by
the other creditors is obtained. There is no
prohibition if the solidary creditor assigned it to
another solidary creditor because there is mutual
agency that exists between the solidary creditors.
So if the assignee would now go to the solidary
debtor and demand performance by showing proof
that he is authorized, the payment will not extinguish
the obligation. It is not a valid payment so as to
extinguish the obligation because he does not have
the legal personality to act for in behalf of the other
solidary creditors.
Art. 1213. A solidary creditor cannot assign his rights
without the consent of the others.
Art. 1214. The debtor may pay any one of the
solidary creditors; but if any demand, judicial or
extrajudicial, has been made by one of them,
payment should be made to him.
The reason why payment should only be delivered to
the solidary creditor who made the demand is the
mutual agency that exist between the solidary
creditors and is now concentrated on the solidary
creditor who made the demand on that solidary
debtor.
There is no problem if other solidary debtors will pay
the demanding creditor and he would accept it. It is a
valid payment because he has the right to choose but
the demanded solidary debtor can pay only to the
demanding solidary creditor.
Art. 1215. Novation, compensation, confusion or
remission of the debt, made by any of the solidary
creditors or with any of the solidary debtors, shall
extinguish the obligation, without prejudice to the
provisions of Article 1219.
The creditor who may have executed any of these
acts, as well as he who collects the debt, shall be
liable to the others for the share in the obligation
corresponding to them.
Novation is not actually extinguishment the
obligation. It merely modifies the obligation, in that,
when the old one is extinguished a new one is
created. The perfect example of this is dation in
payment under Article 1245 whereby there is a
change in the object which consists in a sum of
money to a property and is accepted by the creditor.
Or change in the person of the debtor – substitution.
Or there is subrogation of a 3rd person in the rights of
a creditor.
Compensation is offsetting. One example is I owe Ms.
Roflo money and Ms. Roflo owe me money.
Confusion refers to merger to one person the rights
of a debtor and a creditor.
Remission is akin to donation. It is extinguishment of
a debt. Precisely, there s a requirement that if a
donation is express. The donation must observe the
formalities of ordinary obligations.
2nd paragraph.
The creditor who extinguished the obligation based
on 1st paragraph. His obligation to the other subsists.
Art. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one
of the solidary debtors or some or all 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.
For as long as the obligation is not entirely complied
with, you cannot prevent the other creditors from
demanding from the other solidary debtors.
Art. 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary
debtors extinguishes the obligation. If two or more
solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may
choose which offer to accept.
He who made the payment may claim from his co-
debtors only the share which corresponds to each,
with the interest for the payment already made. If
the payment is made before the debt is due, no
interest for the intervening period may be
demanded.
When one of the solidary debtors cannot, because
of his insolvency, reimburse his share to the debtor
paying the obligation, such share shall be borne by
all his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each.
So if a solidary debtor pays the entire obligation, does
it mean that the paying debtor is subrogated to the
rights of the solidary creditor?
Subrogation – aside from stepping into the shoes, it
can be that if the obligation is secured by real estate
mortgage, if one of the solidary debtor pays, does
that mean that he steps now into the shoes of the
solidary debtors and also is entitled to the security of
the real estate mortgage?
Ans: There is no subrogation because the paying
debtor is entitled to the entire obligation less his
share not the entire obligation for it would be
stepping into the shoes. The only right granted to the
paying debtor is the reimbursement from the other
debtors their respective share in the debt.
2nd par. But if the payment is not yet due or the
interest is not yet due but still debtor pays, creditor
cannot yet demand payment of interest. Otherwise,
he will be unjustly enriched at the expense of the
other solidary debtors. Insolvency will now be shared
by the other solvent debtors.
Art. 1218. Payment by a solidary debtor shall not
entitle him to reimbursement from his co-debtors if
such payment is made after the obligation has
prescribed or become illegal.
If payment is made after the debt has prescribed, the
payment is considered to be a natural obligation
based on conscience.
Art. 1219. The remission made by the creditor of the
share which affects one of the solidary debtors does
not release the latter from his responsibility towards
the co-debtors, in case the debt had been totally
paid by anyone of them before the remission was
effected.
If remission is made after payment, the solidary
debtors are not released from his liability of paying
his share in the obligation. It would be otherwise if
remission comes before the payment so he can run
after the creditor who remitted but not after the
debtor whose share was remitted. If there is total
remission in favor of one of the solidary debtors, the
solidary debtor cannot demand from other their
share for he will be in violation of Article 22 on unjust
enrichment.
Art. 1220. The remission of the whole obligation,
obtained by one of the solidary debtors, does not
entitle him to reimbursement from his co-debtors.
Art. 1221. If the thing has been lost or if the
prestation has become impossible without the fault
of the solidary debtors, the obligation shall be
extinguished.
If there was fault on the part of any one of them, all
shall be responsible to the creditor, for the price and
the payment of damages and interest, without
prejudice to their action against the guilty or
negligent debtor.
If through a fortuitous event, the thing is lost or the
performance has become impossible after one of
the solidary debtors has incurred in delay through
the judicial or extrajudicial demand upon him by the
creditor, the provisions of the preceding paragraph
shall apply.
Impossibility may either be physical, natural, juridical
or legal.
Suppose A, B and C are solidary debtors of D and the
object of the prestation is indivisible. D makes a
demand upon A but he has not complied with the
obligation so he is in default. The object was in the
possession of C and it was lost or deteriorated. D
thereafter makes a demand upon B. B complied and
paid for the value or the price since this is converted
to the payment of damages plus damages because
there was delay plus interest.
So what is the liability of A, B and C?
For deterioration – all will be liable for the value but
with respect for the damages and interest, it will be
shared by A and C.
For total loss – B will not be liable for anything
because he is a complying debtor. He is ready to
comply with his obligation, the others will not. B can
demand for the value, damages and interest from A
and C because they are responsible for delay and the
loss.
Art. 1222. A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by
the creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are
derived from the nature of the obligation and of
those which are personal to him, or pertain to his
own share. With respect to those which personally
belong to the others, he may avail himself thereof
only as regards that part of the debt for which the
latter are responsible.
Defenses:
1. Nature of the Obligation
a. Legal impossibility
b. Void due to absence of consideration
2. Personal to him or which pertain to his share
a. Vitiated consent
3. Defenses personal to others
a. Suppose A, B and C are solidary
creditors. B is minor. Can A invoke
the minority of B? Ans: Yes only to
the share of B who is a minor but not
to others who are capacitated. But if
the defense is prescription, that can
be invoked by all parties to the
obligation because that refers to the
obligation per se. That can be
invoked by any parties to the
obligation.
------------------
Art. 1226. In obligations with a penal clause, the
penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages
and the payment of interests in case of
noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to the
contrary. Nevertheless, damages shall be paid if the
obligor refuses to pay the penalty or is guilty of
fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation.
The penalty may be enforced only when it is
demandable in accordance with the provisions of
this code.
Penal Clause – is an accessory undertaking.
Purpose: To insure performance of an obligation. In
the event of breach, then the debtor shall be liable
for damages. The penalty actually substitutes for the
payment of actual damages suffered by the creditor
in the event of breach by the debtor in the
performance of the obligation.
Generally, found in:
1. Contract of Services
2. Construction Agreements
It might come in the form of:
1. Money (pecuniary in nature)
· Just like the agreement between the contractor
and the Ateneo where they have to pay Ateneo about
P1M monthly because there was already slippage or
delay in the construction of the 2 buildings.
· Another example is the Credit Card. You have to
pay the amount due on the 6th of the month. Is there
a need for the Credit card issuer to demand? No,
because it has a penal clause. This is one example of
the exceptions under Art. 1169 on demand in order
to place the obligor in delay. Because of the penalty
that if you cannot pay on the 6th of the month,
immediately the amount earns an interest of 3.5%
(penalty) aside from the regular 3.5% percent
interest.
2. Forfeiture
· Common in the Contracts of Lease; that if the the
lessee should introduce improvements on the lease s
premises there must be first consent in writing from
the lessor, otherwise, any improvement without the
written consent of the lessor shall be forfeited in
favor of the lessor without reimbursement.
3. Abstention
· Ex. If your parents would say, You are not
supposed to go to MTS during weekdays
(abstention). Otherwise, you have no allowance for
the entire month (forfeiture).
Examples of Abstention that will be covered by
Obligations and Contract
· Suppose you did not comply what is incumbent
or required upon you as one of the winning bidders.
You did not deliver what is supposed to be
constructed within the period agreed upon. So, you
will be forbidden from participating in future bids in a
particular company. This is considered to be a Penal
Clause.
A penal clause may be
1. Subsidiary or alternative
· The creditor is only entitled to damages, because
it is merely a substitute for the actual damages and
interest.
2. Joint or cumulative
· Where both the principal undertaking and the
damages can be awarded to the creditor.
Note: this must be expressly stipulated by the parties.
General rule, it merely represents actual damages.
But the parties may so agree. So aside from the
express stipulation from the parties, the other
exception is found under Art. 1226 – If the obligor
refuses to pay the penalty or is guilty of fraud in the
fulfillment of the obligation, then the creditor shall
be entitled to both.
Likewise, the creditor may be entitled to both as
stated also in Art. 1227
Art. 1227. The debtor cannot exempt himself from
the performance of the obligation by paying the
penalty, save in the case where this right has been
expressly reserved for him. Neither can the creditor
demand the fulfillment of the obligation and the
satisfaction of the penalty at the same time, unless
this right has been clearly granted him. However, if
after the creditor has decided to require the
fulfillment of the obligation, the performance
thereof should become impossible without his fault,
the penalty may be enforced.
Note: This must clearly have granted him.
It might be:
1. Express
2. Inference (implied)
This is different from the debtor that if the debtor
should opt to pay the damages instead of fulfilling the
obligation, the law requires that this must be
expressly reserved to him, and the other one
whereby the creditor can ask both if he demanded
fulfillment and fulfillment becomes impossible
without the fault of creditor, then the creditor can
have the principal undertaking and the damages.
Art. 1228. Proof of actual damages suffered by the
creditor is not necessary in order that the penalty
may be demanded.
So because the penalty substitutes the indemnity of
damages, the law does not require proof of actual
damages. The only risk there, is that the parties are
bound to what is stipulated under the agreement. If
the agreement merely says that you entitled only to
P500k damages and it was proven by the creditor
that he suffered more than that, he cannot ask for
the excess, he is only limited to what is provided for
in the agreement.
Art. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the
penalty when the principal obligation has been
partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor.
Even if there has been no performance, the penalty
may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous
or unconscionable.
And likewise, if the court finds that there is irregular
or partial performance. The penalty shall also be
reduced. Even if there is no performance whatsoever,
as decided in the case of Ligutan vs. CA, if the penalty
is found to be iniquitous or unconscionable, the court
may equitably temper the penalty agreed upon.
Art. 1230. The nullity of the penal clause does not
carry with it that of the principal obligation.
The nullity of the principal obligation carries
with it that of the penal clause.
What if there are several debtors and several
creditors?
Of course in the absence of any express stipulation,
the presumption is that the nature of the liability is
merely joint. But with respect to the penalty, even if
the principal obligation is joint, they may agree that
the penalty shall be solidary.
However, if the nature of the liability respecting the
principal obligation is solidary, then the penalty
shall also be solidary. Why?
Being an accessory undertaking, it derives its life from
principal undertaking. So if the principal undertaking
is solidary, then the penal clause shall also be
solidary.
And because it is merely dependent on the life of the
principal undertaking, even if the accessory
undertaking is void, it will not affect the principal
undertaking. Unless, the principal obligation is void,
then the accessory undertaking shall be void
(referring to the penal clause).
Art. 1231. Extinguishment of Obligations
How are obligations extinguished?
1. Payment or performance
· Payment does not only mean the delivery of
money, but it also means performance of the
obligation. For payment to extinguish the obligation,
what does the law require? There must be complete
delivery or rendering of the obligation or the services,
otherwise there is no extinguishment of the
obligation by reason of payment subject to the
exceptions provided for by law, and these are Articles
1234 and 1235.
· Art. 1234 Substantial performance in good faith,
then the debtor may recover less than damages
suffered by the creditor.
· Art. 1235 There is partial or irregular
performance, but the creditor accepts it without any
protest knowing the partial performance or
irregularity. Then the obligation Is deemed fully
complied with.
2. Loss of the thing due
· Also includes impossibility of the performance of
the obligation. There is loss.
3. Condonation or remission of the debt
4. Confusion or merger of the rights of the creditor
5. Compensation
6. Novation
· Novation does not entirely extinguish an
obligation because, it may be true that the old
obligation is extinguished, a new one is created. It
merely modifies, it does not extinguish.
Other causes:
1. Annulment
2. When there is vitiation of consent, or if
there is incapacity of one of the contracting
parties. But this is not actually a ground per
 se to extinguish an obligation because in
annulment, the aggrieved party has to go to
court and let the court declare the contract
annulled, otherwise there is what you call a
tacit or express ratification.
3. Rescission under Art. 1381
4. Fulfillment of the resolutory condition,
because once the condition is fulfilled, the
obligation is extinguished.
5. Prescription.
What about Death?
As a general rule, death does not extinguish
an obligation. It merely extinguishes an obligation if
the obligation is purely personal on the part of the
obligor.
Ex.
1. The obligation to give support
2. Parental Authority
3. Martial Obligations
Art. 1232. Payment means not only the delivery of
money but also the performance, in any other many,
of an obligation.
Payment may be:
1. Normal
· No need for the parties to go to court.
2. Abnormal
· If the creditor has to go to court to compel
performance of the obligation.
Art. 1233. A debt shall not be understood to have
been paid unless the thing or service in which the
obligation consists has been completely delivered or
rendered, as the case may be.
Precisely, a debt shall not be understood to have
been paid unless the thing or service in which the
obligation consists has been completely delivered or
rendered. Subject to the exceptions provided for in
Arts. 1234 and 1235.
Art. 1234. If the obligation has been substantially
performed in good faith, the obligor may recover as
though there had been a strict and complete
fulfillment, less damages suffered.
Art. 1235. When the oblige accepts the
performance, knowing its incompleteness or
irregularity, and without expressing any protest or
objection, the obligation is deemed fully complied
with.
There is partial or irregular performance, but the
creditor accepts it without any protest knowing the
partial performance or irregularity. Then the
obligation Is deemed fully complied with.
Art. 1236. The creditor is not bound to accept
payment or performance by a third person who has
no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation,
unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.
Whoever pays for another may demand
from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he
paid without the knowledge or against the will of
the debtor, he can recover only insofar as the
payment has been beneficial to the debtor.
Payment made by a third person who has no interest
in the fulfillment of the obligation shall only be valid
whe ….
Example:
Suppose it s the brother of the debtor offers to pay
the obligation of the married brother. Is he a third
person not interested in the fulfillment of the
obligation?
YES! Because he is not an heir or successor in
interest. Remember he is married.
Who are stranger to the fulfillment of the
obligation?
1. Not an heir of the debtor
2. Not a successor in interest of the debtor
3. Not an authorized representative
Note: If a third person (stranger) makes a payment of
the debtor s obligation, the creditor cannot be
compelled. But if the creditor accepts the payment
then the obligation is extinguished.
What are the rights of the third person who pays?
Then it would depend whether there is consent or
without the consent. Knowledge is not consent, I may
have knowledge but I did not consent. This is
essential when we go to compensation.
Art. 1237. Whoever pays on behalf of the debtor
without the knowledge or against the will of the
latter, cannot compel the creditor to subrogate him
in his rights, such as those arising from a mortgage,
guaranty, or penalty.
If the debtor has knowledge but did not consent or
even without his knowledge, the third person who
pays is entitled only to so much that has redounded
to the benefit of the debtor. The reimbursement is
only limited to the amount that has redounded to the
benefit of the debtor, because it was made without
the knowledge or with knowledge but without
consent. However, if the third person who pays with
the consent of the debtor, then he is entitled to full
reimbursement plus the right to be subrogated in the
rights of the creditor, such as those arising from
mortgage, guaranty or penalty.
What does it mean?
Suppose D owes C P700k, now here is a third person,
T who wants to pay and to impress D and pays C and
knowingly the obligation has already been partially
fulfilled, there is merely a balance of P400k. So how
much can T demand from D? Only P400k because this
is the only amount that redounded to the benefit of
the debtor, and if this is secured by a chattel
mortgage, because the payment is without the
knowledge of the debtor, T cannot compel C
(creditor) to subrogate him in the chattel mortgage,
meaning it cannot be transferred to the third person
(T), precisely because the payment is without the
consent of the debtor.
So what happens to the 300k? He has to run after the
creditor, he cannot compel the debtor to reimburse
him the entire obligation because he is only entitled
to what we call as beneficial reimbursement,
meaning what has all redounded to the benefit of the
debtor.
But if he pays with the consent of D (debtor), then he
is entitled to all rights thereto a pertaining, including
being subrogated into the rights of the creditor, plus
full reimbursement.
Note: Look at Art. 1239 (payment made by) and Art.
1241 (payment made to) – two different situations.
---------------
Jan. 18
Art. 1270
Condonation or remission of debts.
For the cause of consideration of condonation,
remission or renunciation is the liberality of the
creditor precisely it is bilateral but not reciprocal.
Bilateral because it requires acceptance on the
part of the debtor but it is not reciprocal because
there is no consideration given.
Art 1270 provides condonation and remission
is essentially gratuitous so the liberality of
the creditor because if a thing is delivered
and accepted by the creditor it ceases to be a
condonation or remission or renunciation. it
becomes novation.
Voluntary can be subject to the rules is
governed by inofficious donations expressed
condonation shall further more comply the forms
of donation. the law provides that if there is
express condonation or remission on the part of
the creditor, in as much as condonation is akin to
a donation, there must be compliance with the
formalities of donation, if you remember in your
Art17 of the Civil Code there are certain forms of
solemnities that must be complied with.
1. validity
2. forcibility
3. convenience or to affect third persons.
The requirements that certain forms that
must be observed in condonation is for purposes
of validity. so what is condoned or remitted is
immovable. money is movable. 5000 above. this
must be in writing. the acceptance by the debtor
must also be in writing, if what is condoned or
remitted is an immovable. this building is
immovable or parcel of land,. the law requires
that condonation or remision or renunciation, it
must be in a public instrument. the acceptance
by the debtor must be in a public instrument,. non
compliance in any of those would mean that the
condonation or remission is void. it might take
effect during the lifetime of the creditor, means
inter vivos or it will take effect upon the death of
the creditor or motis causa. it might be total, or
partial, expressed or implied as provided for by
Art1270.
Implied condonation.
Article 1271. The delivery of of a private
document evidencing a credit, made
voluntarily by the creditor to the debtor,
implies the renunciation of the action which
the former had against the latter. If in order to
nullify this waiver it should be claimed to be
inofficious, the debtor and his heirs may
uphold it by virtue of payment of the debt.
the law requires that the evidence of credit that
must be delivered by the creditor to the debtor is
private... so it is a public document,.. the
promissory note, example the dividends of
credit., it must be private. it means that there
must be no intervention of a notary public. If it is
not authorized. it's merely signed by friends. and
thus, it is bond that has an intervention of a
notary public, it ceases to be a private document.
it becomes a public document and even if it is
delivered by the creditor to the debtor is the
original of the public document. no presumption
shall arise that there's renunciation of the
obligation in favor of the debtor because the
notary public keeps one of the copies. and
transmits the copy to the clerk of court at the end
of month. so when a lawyer authorizes a
document, he always keeps a copy of the
document and he is required to submit a copy to
the clerk of court. so even if there is a delivery of
the original, there is no presumption there is
renunciation of the obligation and likewise even if
it is a private document, but it is 3 copies.
original, duplicate and triplicate. all sign originally,
so that is carbonize. where the signature of the
parties are placed. if the duplicate copy is
delivered by the creditor to the debtor. there is no
presumption that there is renunciation.
What should be delivered by the creditor to the
debtor is the original of the original. Transpacific
case
BAR question: A check was delivered and is in
the possession of the debtor. at the back thereof
there is full payment. Is there a presumption that
the obligation is fully paid because the check now
is in possession of the debtor? No.
Why? There is no signature. Because if indeed it
was fully paid, the creditor should have signed at
the lower portion of the words "full payment" or
attached in the original receipt of the payment.
Is that sufficient that the document is found in the
obligor? There are words that indicate full
payment but the absence of the signature is
insufficient proof that cannot be presumed that it
is fully complied with.
Second paragraph of 1271 refers to a situation
whereby the heirs questions the waiver or the
renunciation because it's inofficious. inofficious
means excessive. in as much as it will now
prejudice the legitimes heirs of the creditors. the
defense of the heir of the debtor. the law says,
they can it may uphold it by proving that the
delivery of the document was made in virtue of
payment of the debt. no longer the virtue of
renunciation. further proofs may be required by
those questioning the renunciation or the
payment. the presumption is that if the document
is found in the possession of the debtor, there is
renunciation and further presumes that the
delivery thereof is voluntarily made by the
creditor to the debtor. there must be that
voluntariness on the part of the creditor and the
burden of proof is on the part of the creditor that
he delivers it against his will because the
presumption is that it was voluntarily delivered.
another presumption is 1273.
Art.1273 the renunciation of the principal debt
shall extinguish the accessory obligations;
but the waiver of the latter shall leave the
former in force.
The reason is why if the principal obligation is
renounced or waived by the creditor. it also
stands to the reason that the accessory
obligations are also renounced. the reason is that
the accessory obligation derives its life from the
principal obligation. if there is no principal
obligation to speak of, there is no accessory
obligation likewise. but not where it is the
accessory obligation that is waived. the principal
obligation shall still subsist. the same holds true
in pledge, if the thing pledge is already found in
the possession after that has been delivered and
is found in the possession of the debtor, the
presumption is that the accessory obligation of
debt has already been remitted or renounced but
not the principal obligation or when the third
person owns the thing because the things pledge
may not necessarily owned by the person who
pledge the object.
A1275 confusion and merger of rights Should
not be confused with confusion and merger
under the law on property because there are also
situations under the law on property where there
is merger of the person. for instance, in a
contract of usufruct. the usufructuary becomes
the owner of the thing which is the object of the
contract of usufruct. thus, the characters of
naked owner and usufruct are now confused in
one person. but not in confusion and merger that
is within the discussion of confusion and merger
of rights. likewise, if the servient estate acquires
the dominant estate, there is also confusion and
merger but that is under the law of property.
A 1275 provides that the obligation is
extinguished from the time the characters of
creditor and debtor are merged in the same
person.
3 requisites in order that confusion arise/merger
1. It must take place between the principal debtor
and creditor-
obligation must be whole, because if the thing
that is secured, the petition is secured by
mortgage is acquired by the creditor, then there
is no confusion or merger of rights
3. confusion must be total in the entire obligation.
exception is
Art 1277, refers to joint obligation. as regards
to the share corresponding to the creditor or
debtor in whom the two characters concur.
Example: A issues a promissory note to B. B
negotiates a PN to C. C to D. D to E. and E back
to A
Art 1276 Merger which takes place in the
person of the principal debtor or creditor
benefits the guarantors. Confusion which
takes place in the person of any of the latter,
like the guarantor, surety does not extinguish
the obligation.
Art 1277 is the exception. when the law requires
that it must be total with regards to the entire
obligation respecting joint obligations.
Compensation
Art 1278 Compensation shall take place, when 2
persons, in their own right, are creditors and
debtors of each other. or off setting.
Example: A owes B 10k, B owes A 8k .can there
be compensation? 2k
4 types of compensation.
1. Legal compensation- In order for legal
compensation to arise, all the requisites in 1279
must be present. Legal compensation takes
place by operation of Law even if the parties are
not aware that all the requisites have been
complied with. But, This must be invoked by the
debtor, otherwise there can be no compensation.
2. Facultative compensation- can only be invoked
by the party who has the right to object to the
compensation.
Example: X is to deliver to Y Toyota Vios 1.3
Y is to deliver to X Toyota Vios 1.9.
who has the right to object or claim the right to
compensation? who will receive the 1.9? X has
the right to invoke compensation. because he will
be prejudiced.
3. conventional compensation- the agreement of
the parties. Even if the obligations are not yet
due. if the parties so agrees, then there is
conventional compensation.
4. Judicial compensation- case Gan vs Reyes.
this happens when there is a civil case.
Example: A files case against B. B in his answer,
also claims for damages. You call that a
counterclaim. Court files for A but also files for B.
because the counterclaim is valid, in the the part of A, not B. on the other hand, the
decision, the court may now off-set their obligation here already prescribed. Can there be
respective claims against each other. compensation? YES
A 1279. In order that Legal compensation may why? Legal compensation for as long as the
be proper, if is necessary: requisites at one time had concurred, then legal
1. That each one of the obligors be bound compensation takes place by operation of law.
principally, and the he be at the same time a even if one of the party or all of the parties are
principal creditor of the other. not aware of it. this must be set up by the debtor,
(because if B is representing C, with respect to Even if one of the debts already prescribed.
the credit due him, he is not the principal creditor. 5. That over neither of them there be any
he's merely a representative of C, there is no retention or controversy, commenced by third
concurrence as with respect to the first requisite. persons and communicated in due time to the
they must be both principally bound as principal debtor.
creditor and debtor of each other.
2. That both debts consist in a sum of money,
or if the things due are consumable, they be
of the same kind, and also of the same quality
if the latter has been stated;
maam said: more fungible is more appropriate
term
that they may be of the same kind, and also of
the same quality if the latter has been stated..
Can there be compensation if the things are
specific or the object? No, likewise there can be
no compensation if the obligation is facultative or
alternative or one with a penal clause.
3. that the 2 debts be due;
in order for a claim to be found a debt, it must be
through a proper judicial proceeding or there
must be a determination. If there's no judgment,
it's only a debt in embryo. Is it required in order
for the debts to be considered to be due must be
incurred at the same time? PNB v Uy, it is not
required that the 2 parties' obligations be incurred
at the same time.
4. what the law requires is that they must be
due and demandable at the same time.
Example: A obtained a loan from B due and
demandable on Jan. 16, 2000. B secured a loan
from A on Feb. 1, 2000, On June 12. 2009, B
made a demand on A to pay the amount due. On
Jan. 16, 2010, A made a demand from B. B
claimed compensation. With a written extra-
judicial demand, what happens? There is a tolling
of prescriptive period. But the demand was on