Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Classification of Obligation:
1. Obligation based on kind of Prestation involved:
to give
to do and
not to do
It is important on rules on compliance and remedies
2. Art.1423 provides kind of obligation based on basis and enforceability:
Civil- grants a right of action to fulfill obligation thru court action being with juridical necessity.
Basis: positive law or man-made law
Enforceability: right of action to demand fulfillment
Natural (lacks elements of civil obligation)- no right of action
Basis: equity and natural law
Enforceability: no right of action; but it doesn’t mean that it cannot be fulfilled because when creditor
demanded fulfillment and debtor fulfilled voluntarily, then the creditor has the right to retain what was paid Commented [a1]: Means that the payor knew that under the
or delivered by debtor. law he could not be compelled to pay but nonetheless he paid.
Example: Action already prescribed (in prescription the civil obligation is converted into natural obligation) Reasons: Gratitude
Conscience
7 kinds of natural obligation: (enumeration not exclusive)
Moral Obligation- no juridical tie Commented [a2]: It is not the obligation nor debt prescribed
3. Obligation as to perfection and extinguishment nut it is the right of action.
Pure
Conditional
With a term
The usual question is “when would obligation due and demandable” , “when would obligation be extinguished” ,
“is the obligation valid? (Art. 1182)”
4. Obligation involving multiple parties
Joint
Solidary
5. Obligation with a Penal Clause
6. Obligation Divisible or Indivisible
7. Obligation with multiple prestations
Possible Question: If one of the prestation became impossible to perform would that result to the
extinguishment of the obligation? It DEPENDS on what kind of obligation is involved, whether it is
Conjunctive, Facultative or Alternative Obligations.
CONJUNCTIVE- there must be at least two prestation which are both valid, thus if one becomes impossible
to perform the obligation is not extinguished because the debtor can perform the remaining prestation.
FACULTATIVE- if one of the prestation became impossible it depends, because if the loss happened before
the substitution and what was lost or destroyed was the substitute prestation, then it will not extinguished the
obligation since the principal prestation subsist. But if before the substitution the principal prestation became
impossible to perform then obligation is extinguished. Commented [a3]: The Reason behind is the debtor no longer
It is not true that the obligation consist only of 1 prestation, but unlike in alternative obligation which allow all want to substitute instead will choose the EXTINGUISHMENT
prestations due and demandable, here in facultative IT CANNOT HAPPEN, there’s only one prestation which
is due and demandable either the principal or the substitute. In other words before the substitution it will only
be the principal prestation which may be due. But if there’s a substitution then it is the one due. Commented [a4]: Upon communication. When can he exercise
Before substitution the principal prestation became impossible to perform, can the debtor be held liable to the the right to make the substitution?
substitute prestation and the creditor validly do so? NO, because the debtor has the right ALWAYS has the “When the PRINCIPAL prestation is impossible to perform” NOT
RIGHT because IT IS ALREADY EXTINGUISHED.
right to make the SUBSTITUTION thus he cannot be compelled to deliver or perform the substitute
The law provides no limitation. Thus anytime.
prestation.
What is the remedy of creditor? Hold debtor to pay damages but not to compel the debtor
Before the substitution the substitute prestation was lost was due to fault of debtor, can he be held liable by
the creditor? NO, because it is not the due prestation also the creditor is not the owner of the thing or object
lost. It is either owned by debtor or 3 rd person as such the debtor will bear the lost or the it is the 3 rd person
who has the right to held the debtor liable. The creditor instead can compel the debtor to perform the
principal prestation.
ALTERNATIVE- assuming there are 3 prestations involved, ie to give specific things a car (500k), a horse Commented [a5]: Conjunctive vs. Alternative the former the
(900k) or a watch (700k). The car was destroyed total wreck, what is the effect of the impossibility of the prestation is AND while the latter is OR
performance would that result to the extinguishment of obligation? Depends on circumstances because if it is
converted into a simple obligation, the moment the debtor communicate his acceptance not from the time he Commented [a6]: If there had been communication of the
made the choice but from the time he communicated the choice. And if he chooses the car, the obligation is choice. The debtor has the right to choose unless right had been
extinguished. expressly granted to the creditor. If the parties are silent the law
provides that it is the DEBTOR.
But what if there’s no communication of choice, the prestations become impossible to perform, the effect as
to right and liability depends to cause of loss and who has the right to choose. The premise is the car was
destroyed before the communication of choice.
FAULT OF DEBTOR: if he has the right to choose, he can still perform any of the prestation. Can he be held
liable for damages? NO, because he can still perform and it was him who has the right to choose.
But if creditor has the right to choose, and the loss was due to debtor’s fault of under the law creditor has two
option: he can demand for the value of the car plus damages OR demand performance of one of the
remaining prestations Commented [a7]: Also with damages? NO, as per Jurado not
FAULT OF CREDITOR: creditor cause loss of the car and debtor has the right to choose, debtor also has entitled to damages because 1st may be the creditor don’t want the
two option: he may treat this obligation rescinded OR perform one from remaining prestations. car
WHAT IF ALL PRESTATIONS BECAME IMPOSSIBLE TO PERFORM BEFORE THE COMMUNICATION Commented [a8]: Only an option, there’s no automatic
OF THE CHOICE, ONE AFTER THE OTHER, can the creditor hold the debtor liable? If he can, how much or recission.
extent of liability? Depends who cause the loss, if the creditor then NO, if due to fortuitous event then NO for Commented [a9]: Debtor may only do this, if the car is not
it is extinguished except under Art. 1174. owned by debtor. Thus the owner of the thing lost may held the
If it is due to fault of debtor, he can he held liable, but by how much depends who has the right to choose, creditor liable
because if he has the right to choose then it is the amount of the thing which was lost last. But if the choice is
with the creditor, then debtor be held liable to the value of any prestations plus damages.
Sources of Obligation:
1. Laws:
Obligation arising from law are not presumed, a party claiming must prove the existence of such law to know
which law arose the obligation of such person.
2. Contracts:
Consent
Object
Consideration
3. Quasi Contract:
If the act is punished by law can it be the basis of a claim under quasi-contract? NEVER, because claim under
quasi-contract are those (Art. 2142) VOLUNTARY, UNILATERAL or LAWFUL, if it is not based on any of the three
then it cannot be considered claim under quasi contract. The principle behind this is that no one shall be unjustly
enriched at the expense of anoother, thus a there will be obligation arising from this source.
Kinds of Quasi Contract:
Solutio Indebiti- something received by a person which he has no right to demand and must be delivered to him
by MISTAKE,
Example:
X bought pack of cigarette to vendor which cost 225, he paid 500 pesos but the vendor
gave him the pack plus 375 change.
How is this situation denominated? Solutio Indebiti. Commented [a13]: Must have legal basis and brief explanation
Why? Because X received something which he doesn’t have the right to demand, which is the amount of 100
pesos only in excess, which was mistakenly delivered by the vendor. Commented [a14]: It is not Solutio Inbebiti if not delivered by
Negotiorum Gestio- the gestor or innoficous manager takes charge of business or property of another, that the mistake.
business or property is neglected or abandoned Commented [a15]: Not all change since X has the right to
Example: demand to 275 change.
A family went to Boracay for 1 day-vacation, while they were away the house burned and the neighbors
helped to put out the fire. Is the family liable under Negotiorum Gestio? NO because of the nature of the
obligation, because the managers did not take over the management of the house but only saves the house
from total destruction. Also the house was neither neglected nor abandoned, they family was only away from
house for vacation thus with intent to return. Lastly, it is covered by Art.2168 under other quasi-contract, thus
not a Negotiorum Gestio.
X in fear of lawless elements beseeching his Barangays, he abandoned his fishpond went to Manila and left
for Europe. Y seeing that fish is ready for harvest, who is in the business of managing fishponds took
possession of the property and fish. Y harvested the fish and sold it to Z. Thereafter Y barrowed money from
W which Y used to buy new supply of fish fry and to prepare the fishpond for the next crop.
How many are involved? 4
What is the relation of X and Y? Negotiorum Gestio, being X is the owner and Y as the gestor or inofficious
manager. who.
Upon the return of X to the brgy. what are the obligation of Y to Z as regards to obligation with Z? between
Y and Z it is a contract of sale, thus between X and Y the latter need to account everything in favor of X
What is the relation between Y and W? will X be bound to it? Contract of loan. X will be obliged to pay W
because it is binding upon him because it is necessary for management of business.
What is the obligation of X to Y? being a NG the rule on agency will apply, as if the gestor is the agent who
managed the property as if there was authority to do it and X asthe owner is the principal.
4. Acts or Omission punished by law
5. Quasi Delicts
Of the 5 sources, if there’s an act or omission would there be the basis of the claim under various sources? Yes,
but only of 3 various sources [(delict, quasi-delict and contracts) limited by rule on no double recovery] since an
act cannot gives to an obligation based on contract and quasi-contract, since in old rule it is of the same source.
Commented [a16]: Demandable at once upon the constitution
Saludaga vs. FEU
of the obligation although the happening of condition extinguish
the obligation.
Example: I will let you use my car until you pass the bar exam.
Obligation as to Perfection and Extinguishment: Thus from the obligation already arises, due and demandable but
When would an obligation become due and demandable? upon passing the obligation will be extinguished.
PURE- at once, upon the constitution of the obligation Commented [a17]: It is demandable at once upon the
RESOLUTORY CONDITION- at once, upon the constitution of the obligation constitution although the arrival of term extinguished the
SUSPENSIVE CONDITION- demandable upon happening of the event, since no condition to talk about if obligation.
condition is not yet happened. Example: I will let you use my car until Nov. 31, 2018.
Thus today my obligation is already due and demandable but upon
RESOLUTORY PERIOD- at once, upon the constitution of the obligation
arrival of such date is already extinguished.
SUSPENSIVE PERIOD- demandable at the arrival of the period.
What are the obligations demandable at once? Pure obligations, Conditional if Resolutory and With a term if Commented [a18]: It is an EVENT which MAY or MAY NOT
happen. It is an uncertain event.
Resolutory. Thus is it obvious that the first thing one can understand as regards to this kind of obligation is WHAT
ARE THE KINDS OF CONDITION OR PERIOD INVOLVED. Commented [a19]: It is a SPACE OF TIME, it is certain to
If the condition is Suspensive, before the happening of condition is there already an obligation? NO, the obligation happen, it will arrive, it will come.
will arise only upon the happening of the condition. But it is different when we talk about obligation with Commented [a20]: Goes into MATTER OF EXISTENCE
Suspensive Period because before the arrival of the period, obligation already exists but it is not demandable. Commented [a21]: Example:
Thus before the arrival of the period the creditor cannot demand for the performance of the obligation. I will give to you my car at the end of the year.
As to acquisition and extinguishment of rights meaning suspensive or resolutory Is there obligation today? YES, but cannot be validly demand for the
car to be delivered today since the right will arise only at the end of
What is a Potestative, Casual or Mixed Condition? the year.
Potestative- based solely on will of one party GOES INTO MATTER OF DEMANDABILITY
Casual- condition is based on luck/chance
Mixed- condition based on both will of party and upon luck/chance
An obligation subject to Impossible condition, what is the effect? VOID, it will never arise. But in Succession if Commented [a22]: Condition “not to do” an impossible thing is
condition is impossible, it is not VOID BUT CONDITION IS DEEMED NOT WRITTEN. Where lay the difference? considered NOT HAVING BEEN AGREED UPON.
Obligation is ONEROUS whereas SUCCESSION is based on GRATUITY or LIBERALITY.
When can an obligation become invalid?
PURE- when contrary to law, public order, and public policy
WITH A PERIOD- period pertaining to the past, because period pertains always to the future CONDITIONAL-
when contrary to law, public order, and public policy
Rule on Impossible Condition
Condition pertains to knowledge of the past Commented [a23]: It pertains to future also but the law allows
Art.1182, if fulfillment is based solely on the will of the DEBTOR for suspensive condition based on past not within the knowledge of both parties
Is it a valid obligation when the condition consist “debtor will pay, when his means permits him”? YES, being
considered as Obligation with a Period, because the remedy of the creditor here is to go to court once the debtor
already has the means. But if debtor already has the means and the creditor goes to court the latter can fix the
period under the law.
When would it be demandable? UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD FIX BY THE COURT.
Is it a valid obligation when the condition consist, If the debtor promises to pay when he likes? NO, if there’s no Commented [a24]: Synonymous “to give”
pre-existing debt, because more often than not the debtor will not like to pay. This rule will not apply if there is pre-
existing debt, even if the condition dependent solely on the debtor. Thus if it is void no need to answer the
demndability.
Is it a valid obligation when the condition consist, when he becomes a lawyer? YES, it will due and demandable
when signs the roll of attorney.
Is it a valid obligation when the conditions consist, when he son sick with cancer does not die within one year?
YES not dependent solely upon the will of the debtor.
Question pertaining to Art.1182. Pedro wanted to give his grandson a car when he pass the bar exam. When his
grandson passed the bar exams, Pedro refused to give the car being the condition is purely based on sole will of
grandson.
Is Pedro correct or not? NO, passing the bar exam does not depend solely on the will of one of the parties. But it Commented [a25]: Clearly the question pertains if condition is
is a mixed condition because the bar exam depends a lot to the examiner, Supreme Court and other factor. potestative or not. Here the condition is passing the bar and the
Assuming this is a potestative condition, does it mean that Pedro cannot be compelled to deliver the car otherwise obligation is to deliver a car.
stated does the obligation void? NOT VOID under Art. 1182 to be void the fulfillment of the condition dependent
solely on the will of the DEBTOR. In the case at bar it is the Pedro who is the debtor, because condition made
solely on the will of the creditor will not render the obligation void.
In a conditional obligation, and the condition was not fulfilled, may the creditor be validly demand that the creditor
performed his obligation? YES under Art. 1186 condition is deemed fulfilled, if the debtor voluntarily prevented Commented [a26]: On its face NO, because in a conditional
knowingly the happening the condition, it is bad faith on his part. obligation it will only arise if the obligation is fulfilled.
Example: Contract of Piece of Work, A promise to pay 50% upon signing and the rest of payment on the condition
completion of work of B. When the construction is halfway finished the owner prevented the worker (B) to enter
premises of construction. Thus the obligation to finish the construction will not be completed but because the
owner (A) voluntarily prevented the fulfillment of the obligation the rule provide that condition is deemed fulfilled,
thus obligation arises and debtor (A) may be compelled to pay.
This is subject to disqualification: but even if the debtor prevented the fulfillment of obligation based on exercise of
a right he cannot be compelled to perform the obligation.
Example: the reason why B was prevented to enter the premises because he doesn’t follow the plans and
specification of the work. Thus the debtor have the right to prevent credito
In 1997 Manuel bond himself to sell Eva a house and lot which is being rented by another person if Eva passes
the 1998 bar exam, luckily for Eva she passes the said exam.
Scenario 1: suppose Manuel sell the house and lot to another before Eva pass the 1998 bar exam, is such sale Commented [a27]: Question on sales, this is about the validity
valid? Why? YES, because the element of contract is present. The contract not being a prohibited contract then it of contract.
is valid. Though the delivery of house and lot is subject to a condition, it can still be the object of sale to another
since the condition had not yet happened.
Scenario 2: supposing Eva has the right to buy said house and lot, is she entitled to the rentals collected by
Manuel before she pass the bar exam? NO, because since the condition was fulfilled in 1998 then she will be
entitled only to the house and lot as well as the fruits only in 1998. NO, In Art.1187 the effect of the fulfillment of Commented [a28]: This is defective answer, consider Art.1187
the condition retroacts to the date of the constitution of the obligation. Thus the buyer has the right to the fruits, the answer pertains only to the owner of thing is the owner of
but despite the retroactive effect of the happening of the condition as to the fruits and interest in relation to fruits.
reciprocal prestations/obligations, this fruits and interest are deemed mutually compensated Commented [a29]: Upon happening of the condition the buyer
Scenario 3: In unilateral obligations arose who will be entitled to the fruits of the thing which is the subject matter simply pay the price and the seller deliver the thing. There’s no
of obligation before the happening of the condition? Art. 1187 the fruits pertain to the debtor in such case Manuel, more issue to fruits of each obligations.
unless the contrary intention was clear. Commented [a30]: This is so because in unilateral condition
In condition to deliver a car if X pass the bar exam, probably a determinate car, before the happening of the this considered as donation.
condition the debtor thought that X cannot pass the bar exam so he repainted the car, change the seat cover and
had other improvements. But a few months after X passed the bar hence the condition was fulfilled. X demanded
the car to be delivered to him.
The debtor refused to deliver the car unless he will be paid the amount he spent to the repainting and etc. is it a
valid demand, is the debtor have the right of retention? NO, under the law, as to improvements made by debtor to
the thing before the happening of the condition, he will only have the right of usufructuary. Thus he will only have
the right to remove the improvement not use car, for as long as removal will not cause damage to the thing.
Improvements made by nature, such in an obligation to deliver a parcel of land, if there’s increase in area because
of avulsion or accretion. Do you think debtor can ask to pay creditor a sum of money as a result of increase of
area or value by nature of the lot? NO, it shall pertain to the creditor without the right of debtor being reimbursed.
OBLIGATION WITH A TERM—
Different kinds of Period (arrival) / term (expiration):
Suspensive, the obligation will become due and demandable
Resolutory, the obligation extinguished
Definite, specific date (ie Dec.25, at the end of this year, within 6 months)
Indefinite, the period may arrive upon the happening of certain event but which event is certain to
happen (ie death)
Legal, those as provided by law (ie payment of tax, obligation giving of support)
Judicial, the court has the power to fix the period ie in Art. 1191, in recission and fulfillment, whereby
fulfillment is a remedy the court shall fix a period wherein the debtor shall fulfill.
In situation where debtor fixed the date of payment then the creditor has the remedy to go to court to fix a
different period.
Voluntary, parties agreed the date
In Art.1197, there was no period designated by the parties but from circumstances it can be inferred that a period
is intended by the parties. Thus the remedy of the creditor is to go to court for the court to fix the period.
For it to apply, there are certain rules that need to observe by the judges: Commented [a31]: Since if there was Art.1197 is not
(a) If the obligation is one arising from a contract, the SC ruled that Art. 1197 will only be applicable if the applicable. Lim vs. People
contract was perfected.
Commented [a32]: This is usually with action for specific
(b) If an action is filed under Art.1197, what should the court must observed? 1st that there’s an obligation where performance except when the period intended by parties is not yet
no period is designated, 2nd is there an intention that a period shall be fix or there was an intention to fix a expired.
period, otherwise this may be a Pure Obligation. 3rd if there was really an intention, the court shall determine Exception to the exception if it involves obligation TO DO for it
what was the period intended by the parties. violate the mandate on involuntary servitude.
Before the arrival of the period, can the debtor be compelled to perform? Or can the creditor be compelled to Commented [a33]: Better phraseology is CREDITOR BE BOUND
accept? TO ACCEPT. Nonetheless it is considered synonymous.
This questions can be answered by determining FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE PERIOD FIX? Was it fixed for the Commented [a34]: It is presumed but disputable based on the
benefit of creditor or debtor or both parties? wordings/phraseology of the contract, rights of the parties,
Solely for the benefit of DEBTOR- the creditor cannot validly demand before the arrival of the period but the circumstances or the facts.
debtor can compel the creditor to accept before the arrival.
Commented [a35]: Determinant: On or before
Example: January 1, 1983 B barrowed money from A amounting to Php10,000 payable until December 30,
1983. A security therefore B pledges a car to A with an agreement that A could use it. On June 30, 1983 B Commented [a36]: The 2nd question pertains to accessory
offered to pay the loan in full and asked for the return of his car. Can B compel A to accept the payment and contract which is the contract of pledge. Thus if the creditor be
compelled to accept the payment or creditor accepted it then
to return the car? Why? NO, because the date fixed was for the benefit of both, thus creditor cannot be there will be extinguishment of whole obligation so as the pledge
compelled to accept nor be ask to return the car. because it is only an accessory contract which follows the principal.
Thus pledgee be compelled to return the car.
In a scenario even if the period was fixed solely for the benefit of the debtor, before the arrival of the period, may
there be a valid demand for the performance of the obligation? YES it can happen when the debtor lost his right to
make use of the period, as enumerated in Art. 1198. Commented [a37]: This is made applicable in sales,
(a) When the debtor becomes insolvent, UNLESS if he can provide for SECURITY OR GUARANTY Commented [a38]: A person considered insolvent when a
acceptable to the creditor for the debt; person has no liquidated asset such as cash to pay his debt when it
(b) If security is lost or disappear due to a fortuitous event; or by debtor’s own act s he has impaired the become due. Thus a person who is insolvent can still have
guaranties or securities UNLESS immediately gives new ones equally satisfactory; properties.
Example: A obtain a loan from B payable within a year, as security for his payment A mortgaged his Commented [a39]: Why debtor lose the right to make use of
uninsured house, 3 months after the loan was given A’s house gutted an accidental fire. Thereupon B period when the lost was not due to his fault? The lender would not
demanded an immediate payment from A who refused contending that the loan was for one year period. have approved the loan if without the security also the lost was not
Is A’s contention valid? NO, his right to make use of period was lost. Thus A should bear the loss since due to the fault of the lender.
it is also a mortgage the owner of the thing bears the loss.
Example: On June 1, 1999 A signs a promissory note and binds himself to pay X 100k plus 15% per Commented [a40]: Problem pertains to FOR WHOSE BENEFIT
annum interest on June 30, 1999. Which is correct? THE PERIOD WAS FIXED
a. before June 30, 1999 X can demand payment, Commented [a41]: Fixed for benefit solely of the creditor
b. X is bound to accept payment and debtor is compelled to pay
Commented [a42]: For benefit of both Since the debt is already
c. A can compel X to accept payment at any date before June 30, 1999
due and demandable. “ON” means that debtor cannot be
d. A can tender payment before June 30, 1999 and X accept it. compelled to pay before June 30
Commented [a43]: For the benefit solely of debtor
Obligation involving Multiple Parties: Commented [a44]: For the benefit of both
Involves two or more creditors or two or more creditors
It involves Passive Joint/Solidary (debtor) and Active Joint/Solidary (creditor)
Usual Question: Can one of the debtors be compelled to pay the entire obligation? Can one of the creditors validly
demand for the payment of entire obligation? It depends if it is joint or solidary.
Example: Four foreign medical students rented the apartment owned by Thelma for a period of one year,
after one semester 3 of them returned to their home country and A is the 1 remained in Phil. and transferred
to a boarding house. Thelma discovered that they left an unpaid telephone bill in the total amount of 80k.
Their lease contract provides that they shall pay telephone services of leased premises. Thelma demanded
that A pay the telephone bill but the A is only willing to pay ¼ of it. Who is correct? Why? THELMA is correct
only if it is a solidary obligation because here ANY OF THE DEBTORS may be compelled to pay the whole Commented [a45]: Because in joint it is EACH debtors FOR HIS
amount of the debt. Clearly the student would be correct if the obligation is joint, A will be liable for ¼ of the PART.
amount as her share. Commented [a46]: Why ¼? Because under Art.1208 , the
If an obligation involving multiple parties does not expressly so state that it is solidary, does it mean that it is joint? division of liability is presumed divided in EQUAL share.
NO, under Art. 1207 though the parties does not expressly so state or is there STIPULATION that it is a solidary
obligation but the LAW or NATURE of the obligation requires solidarity then it is a solidary obligation. Commented [a47]: STIPULATION, LAW AND NATURE OF THE
In the problem is there stipulation that obligation is solidary? NO OBLIGATION MUST BE CONSIDERED TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN
In the case above, does the law on lease provides solidarity in paying telephone bill? NO OBLIGATION REQUIRES SOLIDARY. OTHERWISE IT IS JOINT.
Does the nature of obligation requires solidarity? NO
THUS TO ANSWER THE ABOVE EXAMPLE… THE OBLIGATION IS A JOINT OBLIGATION. “A” IS CORRECT,
AS AN EFFECT THELMA CANNOT COMPEL “A” TO PAY THE WHOLE OBLIGATION BUT ONLY TO “A”’s
SHARE TO THE OBLIGATION. SINCE THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM AND NO DESIGNATION AS TO THE
DIVISION THE IT IS PRESUMED THAT IT IS EQUALLY DIVIDED THUS ONLY ¼ .
When would an obligation is Solidary because it so STIPULATED? The following phrases connotes Solidarity:
Ronquillo vs. CA
“individually and collectively”
“In Solidum”
“Man Communada Solidaria”
“individually and jointly”
“distinctively”
“collectively”
“separately”
“joint and several” or “jointly and severally”
In PN which states “I promise to pay” but followed by signature of two or more persons
When would an obligation is Solidary because it is provided by LAW?
(a) Art. 2194 when two or more persons held liable because of quasi-delict, they are joint tortfeasor.
(b) In succession, if there’s a legacy involving a determinate property and two or more heirs not the legatee took
possession of the property after the death of testator, if the thing was lost due to the fault of such heris. They
will be held solidarily liable to the legatee.
(c) In Solution Indebiti, whereby two or more persons received something which they don’t have the right to
demand and it was delivered to them by mistake. They will be held solidarily liable.
(d) In agency, when two or more principals in relation to particular transaction.
(e) Under Art. 1911 where the agent acted in excess of authority, the principal who contributed in deceiving the
3rd person in believing that the agent had full power. Thus under the principle of ESTOPPEL the agent and
the principal deem held solidarily liable.
(f) Art. 1822-24 in Partnership, one of the scenarios where partners are held solidarily liable among themselves
and with the partnership, while a partner while in the performance of his obligations misappropriate a sum of
money which delivered to him by the client of the partnership.
(g) In Family relations, where the community/conjugal property of husband and wife is sufficient to pay their
obligation. They will be solidarily liable with their own separate property.
(h) Liability of school, teachers, administrator and individual entity or institution engaged in child care over the
minor child or damage caused by the acts or omissions of an unemancipated minor, while under the
SUPERVISION or CUSTODY shall be Principal and Solidary. Commented [a48]: No person can be SUBSIDIARY (presumes
When would an obligation is Solidary because it is provided by NATURE? In Liwanag vs. Workmen’s that the first party has no capacity to pay) AND SOLIDARILY LIABLE
Compensation Commission, if an employee has two or more employers, if the latter is liable under WCC Act, they AT SAME TIME!!!
will be held solidarily liable not because the law so provides but because of nature of obligations.
Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez (vehicular mishap) where both drivers are both negligent, the SC held liable the father of Commented [a49]: In such a case, one may say that the basis
minor driver under quasi-delict regarding vicarious liability of parent. Whereas the driver of the vehicle where the of solidarity if the nature of the obligations.
plaintiff was the passenger together with the owner of the vehicle, they were held liable under contract. Though Commented [a50]: Uribe does not agree with this because the
separate and distinct the source of obligation, the SC held both the driver and operator solidarily liable without driver cannot he held liable under a contract because it is the
providing any explanation why there’s solidarity. operator who has contractual relation with the passenger under the
But in Malayan vs. CA where the liabilities of parties came from different sources of obligation, SC held that they contract of carriage.
cannot be held solidarily liable.
A and B sold 1000 sacks of rice to X and Y on the X’s request that is shall be delivered to him all 1000 sacks of
rice. X resold the rice without turning over any part of it or its price to Y. May Y compel A and B to deliver what he
bought? If so, to what extent? Y can compel A and B to deliver what he bought, only if the obligation of A and B
has not been totally extinguished, otherwise there’s nothing to perform.
But, because A and B delivered to X the entire sacks, was the obligation extinguished? It depends whether the
obligation is joint or solidary. If it is solidary, by the delivery all sacks of rice to one of the creditor the obligation
extinguished because any of the creditor can compel performance from any of the debtors.
THUS NO, SINCE THE OBLIGATION IS A JOINT ONE BECAUSE THERE’S NO STIPULATION NOR THE LAW
OR NATURE PROVIDES SOLIDARITY. THE PERFORMANCE OF “A” AND “B” OF THE WHOLE OBLIGATION
TO “X” DOES NOT EXTINGUSHED THE OBLIGATION AND “Y” CAN ONLY COMPEL “A” and “B” TO DELIVER Commented [a51]: Practically there are 4 debts,
250 SACKS EACH. No. of debtor X No. of creditor = number of debts.
A, B, and C bound themselves solidarily to pay to D the amount of 5k, suppose B paid the obligations what is his So when A and B deliver the entire sacks of rice to X, they only
extinguished their obligation to the latter or the half of their
right against his co-debtor? B may ask reimbursement from A and C. obligations..but not to Y.
A, B and C bound themselves solidarily to pay D the amount of 10k, when the obligation became due and
demandable, D sued B for the payment of the debt of 10k. B moved to dismiss the case on the ground that there Commented [a52]: Payment of A and C the solidarity
extinguished and they are only liable to B for each share.
was failure to implead A and C who are indispensable parties. Will the motion to dismiss prosper? NO, because in
this kind of obligation, the creditor can hold even only one, some or all of them liable. Thus D can file a case only Commented [a53]: In solidary obligation other creditor and
to one of the debtors. And any one of them can be compelled the entire amount. debtors need not be impleaded for they are not indispensable
party. Ony one of them is enough to be held liable for the whole
A, B and C are solidary debtors of D, 12 yrs after the obligation became due and demandable B paid D and later obligations.
on ask for reimbursement of A and C shares. Is B correct? NO, because the obligation has already prescribed.
EFFECT OF INSOLVENCY OF ONE OF THE DEBTORS
Bar Question: If the obligation is a joint obligation and one of the debtors become insolvent, would that increase
the liability? NO, because these debts are separate and distinct from one another. Thus other debtors will not be
affected by the insolvency of the other.
Bar Question: In solidary obligation- A, B and C solidary promise to pay D the amount of 3k, unfortunately C
became insolvent. What recourse against D have against A and B? and what are the rights of A and B against
each other?
D can hold either A and/or B liable for the entire amount, because in solidary obligations, the share of the
insolvent debtor will be SHOULDERED BY ALL OTHER DEBTORS IN PROPORTION TO THEIR SHARE WHO
ARE NOT INSOLVENT. Here there’s no designation of their respective share Art. 1208 of NCC is applicable
hence it is equally divided. If A paid the whole obligation, he can seek reimbursement from B as to the amount of
1500 pesos because of insolvency of C.
EFFECT OF CONDOTION OF DEBT OF ONE OF THE DEBTORS
Bar Question: If the obligation is a joint obligation and one of the debts of the debtors was condoned by the
creditor, would that decrease the liability? NO, because these debts are separate and distinct from one another,
thus this will not benefit other debtors.
Bar Question: Joey, Jovy and Jojo are solidary debtor under a loan of 300,000 which has fallen due, the creditor
condoned Jojo’s entire share in the debt, since Jovy become insolvent the creditor made demand on Joey to pay Commented [a54]: There’s no extinguishment of the entire
the debt. How much if any Joey be compelled to pay and to what extent can Jojo be compelled by Joey to amount, rather there’s only partial condonation since it was only
contribute such payment? Joey may be compelled to pay 200,000 because Jojo’s share in the debt was condoned Jojo’s share was condoned and not the entire obligation. The effect
of which is it will decrease the amount of debt to 200,000.
thus in effect it will reduced the amount of debt by 100,000, but insolvency of Jovy will not further reduce the said
amount. Jojo can be compelled to contribute an amount of 50,000 because one of the debtor is insolvent, thus
SHARE OF INSOLVENT DEBTOR WILL BE SHARED BY ALL SOLVENT DEBTORS INCLUDING THE SHARE
OF THE DEBTOR WHOSE DEBT WAS CONDONED. It will not exempt him from his obligation as to his co-
debtors.
Bar Question: A, B, C and D are solidary debtors of X for 40,000. X released D from payment of his share 10,000
when the obligation became due and demandable C turned out to be insolvent, should the share of insolvent C
divided only between the two, A and B? NO, the share of the insolvent debtor shall be shouldered by debtors who
are not insolvent including the debtor whose share was condoned. Thus D shall contribute still to the share of
insolvent debtor. Thus A and B is liable for 13,333.33 and D is liable to 3,333.33.
Bar Question: Rudolf barrowed 1million from Rodrigo and Fernando who acted as solidary creditors. When the
loan matured, Rodrigo wrote a letter to Rudolf demanding the payment of the loan directly to him. But before
Rudolf could comply, Fernando went to see him personally to collect and Rudolf paid him. Did Rudolf made a
valid payment into one of the solidary creditors? NO, by express provision of the law “IN SOLIDARY
OBLIGATION WHERE THERE ARE TWO OR MORE CREDITORS THA DEBTOR SHOULD PAY THE
CREDITOR WHO FIRST MADE THE DEMAND” since Rodrigo made prior demand to Rudolf.
EFFECT OF MINORITY OF ONE OF THE PARTIES
Bar Question: What is the effect when one of the debtors is 16yrs. old? It depends whether the minority if TOTAL
or PARTIAL defense and WHO IS INVOKING THE DEFENSE AND WHETHER THE OBLIGATION IS JOINT
AND SOLIDARY.
If the minor himself is the one invoking that minority then it is a total defense but if he received something from the
creditor, the minor should return what he received in order that obligation will be annulled/rescinded.
If the defense is invoked by the debtor who is not the minor, in joint obligation it is not a defense at all because
debts are separate and distinct from each other. But in solidary obligation, other debtor may invoked the defense
of minority only as partial defense thus only as to the share of minor debtor. Thus the amount of debt will be
reduced as the effect of minority of one of the debtor.
Bar Question: A, B, C D and E was solidary debtor of X. E was given by X an extension of 6 months without the
consent of other 4 debtors, what is the effect to the obligation of other debtors? In solidary obligation all debtors
can invoked the extension given by X to E. Anyone of them cannot be held liable within 6 months.
TOTAL DEFENSE REGARDLESS THE OBLIGATION IS JOINT OR SOLIDARY
Example: obligation arising from contract and it is void, then it is a total defense which can invoked by any of the
debtors.
DIVISIBILITY AND INDIVISIBILITY OF OBLIGATIONS
The question here pertains whether the obligation can be partially performed? In other words the creditor can
validly demand that obligation be performed partially. On the other hand the debtor can bound the creditor to
accept partial performance.
GR: partial performance is non performance, as a rule creditor cannot be bound to accept partial performance.
EX: there’s stipulation
the obligation is partially liquidated and partially unliquidated
divisible by provision of law
Are there obligation indivisible by their nature and therefore the parties cannot stipulate for their divisibility? YES,
obligation to deliver a definite things, ie the obligation to deliver a live horse.
What is the relevance of divisibility and indivisibility? The performance of obligation whether it performed the
obligation partially or not.
Bar Question: A, B and C obliged themselves to deliver a specific horse which amounts to 600,000 to X. Before Commented [a55]: In this question, it must be qualified WON
the due date arrived the horse died due to the fault of A, thereafter X files an action against C. If you’re the judge action will prosper if not all the parties are impleaded? YES,
how will you decide the case? In a joint indivisible obligation there’s no need to implead all the parties for in this because in joint indivisible obligations if not all the parties are
impleaded it may still prosper if the action is not specific
case it does not involve specific performance, thus impleading C alone the case will prosper. Also, the effect of
performance. In the problem it cannot be specific performance
lost of the thing in joint or solidary obligation converts it to a monetary obligation. Each of them is liable to their because the horse is already dead.
respective share, there being no designation it is equally divided among the debtors, but the one who cause the
loss will be liable also for damages. Hence, C can be held liable in the amount of 200,000 but not liable to the Since the horse died due to fault of one of the debtor the effect lost
damages for it is A who cause the death of the horse. of the thing in joint or solidary obligation will convert the obligation
into a monetary obligation. If it is converted each one of them is
liable into their respective share but the one who cause the loss will
be liable for damages.
Obligation with a Penal Clause:
As to the nature of the Clause: in Robles-Francisco vs. CFI it is a contract of sale involving parcel of land, Have it been a solidary obligation, C can be held liable not only of
whereby the parties stipulated that once the Sps.Francisco (buyer) already paid the entire amount since it is the 200,000 but also the damages. But he can seek reimburse to B
payable by installment, the developer-seller now be obliged to deliver to the buyer the TCT over the parcel of land. which is 200,000 as his share and from A the amount of 200,000
plus the damages.
If the developer would not deliver the TCT then the developer should return all the amounts paid plus 4% interest.
Despite full payment the developer failed to deliver the TCT, and it turned out that the whole property was under
mortgaged agreement with GSIS. Thus as stipulated Sps.Francisco demanded that the developer should perform
its obligation, and when the latter refuses, Sps.Francisco filed an action. They prayed that the developer should
return the amounts paid but also the 4% interest plus the nominal damages.
The developer contended that in an obligation with a penal clause the penalty shall substitute the payment for
damages, indemnity and payment interest. That the stipulation in the contract of payment of 4% interest constitute
as penal clause. Thus following the rule, the developer should not be held to pay the nominal damages awarded
by the trial court.
WON that the developer is correct that such is a penal clause? SC held that it cannot be a penal clause, because
AS ITS NATURE IT PROVIDE FOR A GREATER LIABILITY IN CASE OF NON-COMPLIANCE, but even without
that clause the debtor can be held liable at a legal rate of 6% per annum. Thus a 4% interest as stipulation a penal
clause when the subsisting legal rate is much higher.
The rule that in penal clause the penalty shall substitute the payment for damages, indemnity and payment
interest is only the general rule.
The exceptions are: if fraud was committed
If it was so stipulated by the parties (ie credit card agreement)
When the one who is liable refuses to pay the penalty
In the case of Bachrach vs. Espiritu, the issue was that there was a penalty of 25% and interest of 12%, it is this
allowed? YES, though there’s a penal clause the parties so stipulated that a 12% interest can be collected, but the
SC did not allow the collection to 25% penalty and reduce such because there was partial payment. Commented [a56]: Reason for reduction of penalty are:
Bettis Furniture Co. under took to deliver to Mr. Bagongkasal specified pieces of living room and bed room 1.There’s partial fulfillment though irregular or at least an
furniture all made of Narra for a price stipulated in contract. The agreement had a penal clause that any violation attempt to fulfill
2. The penalty is unconscionable. It is only unconscionable
of the contract will entitled the aggrieved party to damages of 100,000. The furniture delivered by Bettis was made depends on principal amount involved.
not of Narra but of inferior wood. In a suit to recover damages, Mr. Bagongkasal was able to prove that the actual
damages sustained amounted to 200,000 he demanded that amount plus 100,000 penalty for a total of 300,000. Commented [a57]: Mr. Bagongkasal may be entitled more than
Bettis however countered that if it were liable for damages the maximum amount should not exceed 100,000 as the amount agreed upon if there was fraud committed. The fact
stated in the penal clause. Whose clais would you sustain? Why? Neither in the claim of Mr. Bagongkasal, he will that the Bettis company delivered a furniture made of inferior
wood doesn’t mean that there was fraud.
only be entitled if there was fraud in Bettis performace of its obligation, because fraud is not presumed thus Mr.
Bagongkasal has the burden of proving, He should prove that it was the intention of Bettis defraud him by Commented [a58]: The claim of Bettis Furniture would be
delivering pieces of a furniture not made of inferior wood. However, assuming that there was fraud Mr. tenable if not one of the exceptions is applicable thus is should be
Bagongkasal is not correct because if there was fraud he cannot recover both the actual damage plus the penalty. the general rule will govern.
He will only be entitled to recover the excess of actual damage beyond the penalty (Pamintuan vs. CA). Otherwise
the amount will be considered to Mr. Bagongkasal is only 200,000.
If there is non-compliance and there’s a penal clause, can the creditor demand both the fulfillment of the obligation
and payment of penalties agreed upon? NO, creditor may either demand performance or claim penalty. It is only
possible if the Civil code provides if such right if clearly granted to him. Commented [a59]: It doesn’t mean that it is stipulated but it is
But the debtor cannot choose to just pay the penalty and be exempt in the performance of his obligation. The only clear in the agreement.
creditor could have still demand the performance of the obligation except IF THAT RIGHT IS EXPRESSLY
RESERVED TO THE DEBTOR.
Compliance which involves all Obligations:
How these obligations are complied with? Start with Art.19 of NCC though this provision is broad and vague. Commented [a60]: If the claim is about DAMAGES and no
Then consider the source of obligation (ie in contract, the manner of compliance is stipulated by the parties). other basis just state the cardinal rule, this rule not only compliance
Finally, regardless of the source of obligation if it does not provide the manner of compliance, it shall be complied of obligation but also exercise of rights. IT IS THE BASIS OF ABUSE
OF RIGHT PRINCIPLE.
with the provision of Civil code depending on the kind of obligation as to prestation.
In other words there are provision in the NCC depending in the prestation which governs its compliance:
TO GIVE- determine if the thing is determinate or generic. Also consider Art. 1166
To Give a Generic Thing: it shall be complied when the feature of thing is not determined, the debtor cannot
compel the creditor to accept a thing inferior quality, but he creditor cannot also compel the debtor to deliver
a thing of superior quality. THE RULE PROVIDE IN DETERMINING THAT THE THING TO DELIVER IS
NEITHER INFERIOR NOR SUPERIOR, CONSIDER THE INTENTION OF PARTIES IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE OBLIGATION ALSO SUCH OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.
To Give a Specific Thing: it shall be complies by delivering the thing WHICH WAS PROMISED. The debtor
cannot compel the creditor to deliver another thing even such thing is valuable from what was promised. But
may creditor may accept if he wants to.
TO DO- Art. 1167 and Art. 1168.
Factors affecting Obligations in General:
This factors would result liability for damages under Art. 1170
Reasons why party be held liable for damages:
There’s Fraud was commited
He was in Delay
There’s Negligence (Cangco vs. MRR)
If there’s contravention of the tenor (ie complete non-performance or different from what was stipulated)
Parties are not liable for damages if:
Both parties faithfully complied with their respective obligations
Even there’s no performance or faithful performance if there’s an EXCUSE then debtor cannot be held liable (ie
creditor’s fault of non-performance and Fortuitous event)
What is fortuitous event? Art. 1174 Those event which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen were
inevitable. The General Rule is no person shall be responsible.
Exemption of fortuitous event:
When so stipulated
When the law so provides- Art. 1165, Art. 1942
When the nature of the obligation requires assumption of risk- Insurance contract
To be able to validly invoke Art. 1174, there must be no concurring negligence on the party invoking this defense.
In FRAUD, has 2 Kinds:
1. Fraud in performance/ malice or bad faith, may arise from any source. WAIVER TO FUTURE FRAUD IS Commented [a61]: Know when the fraudulent act committed
VOID. (when A promised to deliver 12 bottles but only delivered 3 bottles) and the waiver executed.
2. Fraud in obtaining consent/ dolo causante/ causal fraud, it can happen in relation to contracts (When A
obliged himself to sell a bottle with liquid in it and misrepresented it as genuine wine when in fact not)
In DELAY, Art. 1169 only if after DEMAND judicially or extra-judicially is made but the debtor failed to comply with Commented [a62]: Demand is valid when the obligation is DUE
the obligation.
Example: A agreed to perform the obligation at a particular date, despite the arrival of such period he failed to
comply. Does that mean that the debtor is in delay, for which he may be held liable for damages? Not necessarily,
because as a rule DEMAND IS NECESSARY FOR DELAY TO SET IN.
There are however, exemptions to the rule:
when it is so stipulated by the parties
when the law so provides
when demand would be useless
Delay in relation to reciprocal obligations, when one of the parties comply and the other party had not comply.
Then the party who had not complied will be considered in delay even if there was no demand. Example: in
contract of sale, if the seller delivered the thing and ownership already pass to the buyer, but 5 months after the
delivery the buyer had not yet paid. Does mean the buyer be considered in delay and be held liable for damages?
YES if based in Art.1169. NO, if under the stipulation of parties, the debtor may not be considered in delay if the
stipulation the buyer will pay only after one year.
Kinds of Delay:
Mora Accipiendi- delay on the part of creditor
Mora Solvendi- delay on part of debtor
Compensatio Morae- delay on part of both parties.
Agcaoili vs. GSIS- if both parties are in delay, in contemplation of the law NO ONE IS IN DELAY.
and therefore no one can cancel the contract.
Effects of Delay:
Payment of damages
Even there’s fortuitous event, the debtor can still be held responsible for the loss of such thing.
Example: Cristina brought her diamond ring to a jewelry shop for cleaning, the latter under took the
ring by Feb. 1, 1999, when such date arrived the jewelry shop told Cristina that the job was not yet
finished and ask her to return 5 days after. On Feb. 6, 1999, Cristina went to the shop to claim the
ring but she was informed that it was stolen by thief who entered the night before. Cristina filed a
case for damages against the jewelry shop which put up a defense of force majeure. Will the action
prosper or not? NO, even if the incident robbery as fortuitous event, the action may still prosper
because at the time of the loss even due to fortuitous event the debtor is already in delay which
involves an obligation of delivery of specific thing.
Example: Mr. Mekaniko leased some automobile repair equipment to Mr. Masipag who is opening
his auto repair shop, the lease agreement was executed in Feb.15, 1985 stipulated that obligation
is one month only and that Mr. Masipag should return the equipment of Mr. Mekaniko. The
equipment was delivered in Feb. 15, 1985; one month after Mr. Mekaniko on a telephone call
asked Mr. Masipag to return his property that same day. But because his truck broke down Mr.
Masipag failed to comply. Early the next morning the equipment was burned in an accidental fire
that started in nearby restaurant and gutted Mr. Masipag’s auto repair shop. Mr. Mekaniko would
like to hold Mr. Masipag liable for payment of value of equipment plus damages because it did not
comply with date agreed upon. Is Mr. Mekaniko’s allegation tenable? NO, In the case-at- bar the
demand of Mr. Mekaniko is not valid, under Art. 13 of NCC the first day is excluded while the last
day is included thus the obligation is not yet due when he made his demand. Thus, GR in case
there’s fortuitous event is that no person shall be held liable is applicable.
In NEGLIGENCE, it is not the same with fault because it may be intentional. It is by omission of diligence required
by the nature of the obligation. Art. 1173 provide for the parameter whether the act is negligent or not, considering
the NATURE OF OBLIGATION (helps to determine the standard of care) which corresponds to CIRCUMSTANCE
OF PERSON, TIME and PLACE.
The following requires highest degree of diligence: common carrier, realty firms, banks and public utility.
Negligence can also be classified into: negligence in the performance Art. 1173, negligence as to independent
source of obligation (culpa aquillana or quasi delict) and negligence as to gravity (gross or simple) Telefast vs. . Commented [a63]: The gravity is relevant in Gross negligence
act amount to BAD FAITH thus a party is entitled to damages.