Prov Rem and SCA Cases under Syllabus of Atty. Brondial
Fortuitous, DelayFull description
Full description
Digests of select cases on extinguishment of obligations: Cinco vs. CA, Sps. Dela Cruz vs. Concepcion, Mavest USA et al vs. Sampaguita Garments Corp., DBP vs Unionbank, Sps. Fabrigas vs. San…Full description
Insurance Law Case digests comp (Finals)Full description
article 12 compilation case digests
Law
Full description
ObliCon digest compilationFull description
CASE REPORTS & DIGESTS – Arts. 1267 – 1304 CIVIL CODE 1. JESUS V. OCCENA and EFIGENIA C. OCCENA, vs. HON. RAMON V. JABSON, Presiding Judge of the Court Of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XX…Full description
Digests and case doctrines for Obligations and Contracts under Civil Law Review II of Atty. R.F. Balane.Full description
iu
TAX CASE DIGESTS COMPILATION (1).docxFull description
sadasdadasdasdFull description
Consolidated case digests for Taxation Law 1 class with Atty. Abelardo Domondon, SY 2017-2018.Full description
criminal procedure
Full description
A2010 legendary digest ^_^
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES POLYTECHNIC POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCTRINES AND CASE DIGEST
Alonzo, Eymarie Julia A. Lantin, John Lester C. a!a"uan, #ar$ Ir%in JD &'(
Atty. Reynal"o )lores
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
DOCTRINES
Pag# $ %
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
Torres, J.: According According to the Article Article 1089 of the Spanish Civil Code, and currently currently Article Article 11!, 11!, "#ligations "#ligations arise fro$: %a&, %a&, Contracts, 'uasi(contracts, 'uasi(contracts, and )llicit acts and o$issions or #y those in &hich any *ind of fault or negligence occurs+elicts and 'uasi(delicts-. And that "#ligations arising fro$ fro$ la& are not presu$ed. presu$ed. Those Those epressly epressly deter$ined deter$ined #y the code or special la&s, la&s, etc., are the only de$anda#le ones. +Article 118-. The rendering of $edical assistance in case of illness is co$prised a$ong the $utual o#ligations to &hich the spouses are #ound #y &ay of $utual support. Spouses are $utually #ound to support each other, and &hen either of the$ #y reason of illness should #e in need of $edical $edical assistance, assistance, the other is under the unavoida#le unavoida#le o#ligation o#ligation to furnish the necessary services of a physician in order that health $ay #e restored, and he or she $ay #e freed freed fro$ fro$ the sic*ness #y &hich life is /eopardied /eopardied the party #ound to furnish such support is therefore lia#le for all epenses, including the fees of the $edical epert for his professional services. services. DELA CR/; 0. NORT7ERN T7EATRICAL ENTERRISE INC. &GR' No' 6*+,- 0* O'G' )..0). .0- 1% A3g3st %,0)5
2onte$ayor 2onte$ayor, J.: Although it $ay #e said that it &ould #e in the interest of the e$ployer to give legal help to and defend its e$ployee in order to sho& that the latter &as not guilty of any cri$e either deli#erately deli#erately or through through negligence, #ecause should the e$ployee #e found cri$inally lia#le and he &as found insolvent, insolvent, the e$ployer &ill #e su#sidiarily lia#le. 3o&ever, 3o&ever, the court is una#le to Pag# $ .
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
say and hold that the giving of legal assistance to its e$ployees is a legal o#ligation, as it does not count &ith the sanction of $an($ade la&s. <1 CONT CONTR RACTS ACTS i. ARTS ARTS.. &&+9 &&+9 AND AND &(6+ &(6+ =1 /AS /ASI' I'CO CONT NTRA RACT CTS S i. DE)INITION * ART. -&5ii. NEGOTI NEGOTIOR/ OR/# # GESTIO GESTIO ' ARTS. ARTS. -&55TO -&55TO -&+( -&+( iii. iii. SOL/TIO SOL/TIO INDEBIT INDEBITII * ART ARTS. S. -&+5 -&+5 TO TO -&( i%. i%. OT7ER /ASI'CONTR /ASI'CONTRACTS ACTS * ARTS. ARTS. -&5 TO -&2+ -&2+ %. SOL/TIO INDEBITI INDEBITI 0S. 0S. NAT/RAL NAT/RAL OBLIGA OBLIGATIONS >ARTS. >ARTS. &5-( TO &5(61 "1 DELICTS i. ART ART. &66 O) T7E RE0IS RE0ISED ED ENAL ENAL CODE CODE ii. ART. -& -&22 e1 /AS /ASI' I'DE DELI LICT CT i. ARTS. -&2 &2 ii. 0ICARIO/S 0ICARIO/S LIABILIT: LIABILIT: ' ART ART.. -&46 O) T7E CI0IL CI0IL CODE CODE AND AND ARTS. ARTS. -&4, -&9 AND -( O) T7E )A#IL: CODE iii. ART. (( Cases? AD/A 0. ROBLES &GR &GR No' L()*)+ L()*)+77- 77 SCRA SCRA )+0- ., A3g3st A3g3st %,605 %,605 Castro, J.:
Civil lia#ility coeists &ith cri$inal responsi#ility. )n negligence cases the offended party +or his heirs- has the option #et&een an action for enforce$ent of civil lia#ility #ased on culpa cri$inal under article 100 of the 4evised 5enal Code and an action for recovery of da$ages #ased on culpa a6uiliana under article 71!! of the Civil Code. The action for enforce$ent of civil lia#ility #ased on culpa cri$inal section 1 of 4ule 111 of the 4ules of Court dee$s si$ultaneously insti institut tuted ed &ith &ith the the cri$in cri$inal al actio action, n, unles unlesss epr epressly essly &aiv &aived ed or reserv eserved ed for a separa separate te application #y the offended party. Article 71!! of the Civil Code, ho&ever, precludes recovery of da$ages t&ice for the sa$e negligent act or o$ission. )n the present case, the Court finds it i$$aterial that the 5aduas chose, in the first instance, an action for recovery of da$ages #ased on culpa a6uiliana &hich action proved ineffectual. The Court also ta*es note of the a#sence of any inconsistency #et&een the afore$entioned action prior availed of #y the 5aduas 5aduas and their su#se6uent su#se6uent application application for enforce$ent enforce$ent of civil lia#ility arising fro$ the offense co$$itted #y 5unalan and conse6uently, for eaction of 4o#les Pag# $ 1
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
su#sidiary responsi#ility. Allo&ance of the latter application involves no violation of the proscription against dou#le recovery of da$ages for the sa$e negligent act or o$ission. )t &as stated that the &rit of eecution for the /udg$ent on the civil case &as left unsatisfied. SINGSON 0. BI &GR' No' L(.)+16- .1 SCRA %%%6- .6 23n# %,7+5
Concepcion, C.J.: The court repeatedly held that the eistence of a contract #et&een the parties does not #ar the co$$ission of a tort #y the one against the order and the conse6uent recovery thereof. Stating the case of Air rance v. Carrascoso, the tort on the air carriers part, for, although the relation #et&een the carrier and passenger is contractual #oth in origin and nature; the act #rea*s the contract $ay also #e a tort. #ALIOL %. TAN &GR' No' L(.661*- 00 SCRA %%%6- .% 2an3ar4 %,6)5
4egalado, J.: The diligence of a good father of a fa$ily re6uired #y la& in a parent and child relationship consists, to a large etent of the instruction and supervision of the child. Su#sidiary lia#ility of parents for da$ages co$$itted #y their $inor children i$posed #y Article 7180 of the >e& Civil Code covers o#ligations arising fro$ #oth 6uasi(delictsand cri$inal offenses. )n the present case, the petitioners are gravely re$iss in their duties in not diligently supervising the activities of their son, despite his i$$aturity and $inority, so $uch that it &as only at the ti$e of ?endells death that they allegedly discovered that he &as a CA>@ agent and that his fathers gun &as $issing fro$ the safety deposit #o. Pag# $ )
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
A#ad Santos, J '! According to the Supre$e Court, the rule that applies in this case is the Section 7, 4ule 111 of the 4ules of Court for )ndependent Civil Action that in civil action entirely separate and distinct fro$ the cri$inal actions $ay #e #rought #y the in/ured party during the pendency of the cri$inal case in relation to Article BB of the Civil Code that )n cases of defa$ation, fraud, and physical in/uries a civil action for da$ages entirely separate fro$ the cri$inal action $ay #e #rought #y the in/ured partD and that Such civil action shall proceed independently of the cri$inal prosecution;D )t also noted that civil action for da$ages &hich it allo&s to #e instituted is e(delicto. Another is that the ter$ 5hysical )n/uries in Article BB of the Civil code is to #e ta*en in the generic sense as it includes consu$$ated, frustrated, and atte$pted ho$icide. Stating the case of Carandang v. Santiago, it $ust #e understood to $ean #odily in/ury and not the cri$e of 5hysical )n/uries. )n the light of the foregoing circu$stances of the case, it is apparent that the civil action against private respondent $ay proceed independently fro$ the cri$inal case. #ARCIA %. CA &GR' No' L(1)0.,- %.* SCRA %,1- .6 2an3ar4 %,+15
4elova, J.: The Section 7 of the 4ule 111 $erely refers to the institution of an independent civil action &ithout &aiting for the filing or ter$ination of the cri$inal action and re6uires only preponderance of evidence to prosper and not proof of #eyond reasona#le dou#t as re6uired for conviction in cri$inal cases. 3o&ever, an ac6uittal #ased on the finding that the facts upon &hich civil lia#ility did not eist, #ars the filing of an independent civil action if it is #ased on the cri$e. Also, Article BB&hich prescri#es that in cases of defa$ation, fraud and physical in/uries the offended parties $ay #ring a civil action separate and distinct fro$ the cri$inal action. Stating Tan v. Standard Eacuu$ "il Co$pany: Fthe ac6uittal of the accused fro$ the cri$inal charge &ill not necessarily etinguish the civil lia#ility unless the court declares in the /udg$ent that the fact fro$ &hich the civil lia#ility $ight arise did not eist. ?here the court states that the evidence thro&s no light on the cause of fire and that it &as an unfortunate accident for &hich the accused cannot #e held responsi#le, this declaration fits &ell into the eception of the rule &hich ee$pts the accused, fro$ civil lia#ility.D Pag# $ 0
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
Carpio, J.: @nder Section 1 of the present 4ule 111, the independent civil action in Articles B7, BB, B= and 71!G of the Civil Code is not dee$ed instituted &ith the cri$inal action #ut $ay #e filed separately #y the offended party even &ithout reservation. The co$$ence$ent of the cri$inal action does not suspend the prosecution of the independent civil action under these articles of the Civil Code. Also, the accused can file a civil action for 6uasi(delict for the sa$e act or o$ission he is accused of in the cri$inal case. This is epressly allo&ed in paragraph G, Section 1 of the present 4ule 111 &hich states that the counterclai$ of the accused $ay #e litigated in a separate civil action. This is only fair for t&o reasons. irst, the accused is prohi#ited fro$ setting up any counterclai$ in the civil aspect that is dee$ed instituted in the cri$inal case. The accused is therefore forced to litigate separately his counterclai$ against the offended party. )f the accused does not file a separate civil action for 6uasi(delict, the prescriptive period $ay set in since the period continues to run until the civil action for 6uasi(delict is filed. Second, the accused, &ho is presu$ed innocent, has a right to invo*e Article 71!! of the Civil Code, in the sa$e &ay that the offended party can avail of this re$edy &hich is independent of the cri$inal action. To disallo& the accused fro$ filing a separate civil action for 6uasi(delict, &hile refusing to recognie his counterclai$ in the cri$inal case, is to deny hi$ due process of la&, access to the courts, and e6ual protection of the la&. RA)AEL TR/C@ING CORORATION %. eole &GR' No' %.,*.,- 1.,SCRA 7**- *. A8ril .***5
5ardo, J.: )n negligence cases, the aggrieved party has the choice #et&een +1- an action to enforce civil lia#ility arising fro$ cri$e under Article 100 of the 4evised 5enal Code and +7- a separate action for 6uasi delict under Article 71!G of the Civil Code of the 5hilippines. "nce the choice is $ade, the in/ured party can not avail hi$self of any other re$edy #ecause he $ay not recover da$ages t&ice for the sa$e negligent act or o$ission of the accused. This is the rule against dou#le recovery. @nder the la&, this vicarious lia#ility of the e$ployer is founded on at least t&o specific provisions of la&. The first is epressed in Article 71!G in relation to Article 7180 of the Civil Code, &hich &ould allo& an action predicated on 6uasi(delict to #e instituted #y the in/ured party against the e$ployer for an act or o$ission of the e$ployee and &ould need only a preponderance of evidence to prevail. The lia#ility of the e$ployer for the negligent conduct of Pag# $ 7
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
the su#ordinate is direct and pri$ary, su#/ect to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the e$ployee. The second, epressed in Article 10B of the 4evised 5enal Code, provides that an e$ployer $ay #e held civilly lia#le+su#sidiarily- for a felony co$$itted #y his e$ployee in the discharge of his duty. This lia#ility attaches &hen the e$ployee is convicted of a cri$e done in the perfor$ance of his &or* and is found to #e insolvent that renders hi$ una#le to properly respond to the civil lia#ility ad/udged. Also, pursuant to the provision of 4ule 111, Section 1, paragraph B of the 198 4ules of Cri$inal 5rocedure, &hen private respondents, as co$plainants in the cri$inal action, reserved the right to file the separate civil action, they &aived other availa#le civil actions predicated on the sa$e act or o$ission of the accused(driver. )ERNANDO %. CA &GR' No' ,.*+6- .*+ SCRA 6%)- *+ :a4 %,,.5
2edialdea, J.: >egligence has #een defined as the failure to o#serve for the protection of the ineterst of another person in the degree of care, precaution, and vigilance &hich the circu$stances /ustify de$and, &here#y such other person suffers in/ury. A person &ho #y his o$ission causes da$age to another, there #eing negligence is o#liged to pay for the da$age done. Stating the case of 5icart v. S$ith, the court stated that the test #y &hich the eistence of negligence in a particular case $ay #e stated as: id the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasona#le care and caution &hich an ordinary prudent person &ould have used in the sa$e situationH )f not, then he is guilty of negligence. To #e entitled for da$ages for an in/ury resulting fro$ negligence of another, a clai$ant $ust esta#lish the relation #et&een the o$ission and the da$age. 3e $ust prove under Article 71!9 of the Civil Code, that the defendants negligence &as the i$$ediate and proi$ate cause of his in/ury. 5roi$ate cause has #een defined as that cause, &hich, in natural and continuous se6uence un#ro*en #y any efficient intervening cause, produces the in/ury, and &ithout &hich the result &ould not have occurred. ?here the resulting in/ury &as the product of the negligence of #oth parties, there eist a difficulty to discern &hich acts shall #e considered the proi$ate cause of the accident. The court, stating the case of Taylor v. 2anila Ilectric 4ailroad and %ight Co. provided a guideline for a /udicious assess$ent of the situation: istinction $ust #e $ade #et&een the accident and the in/ury #et&een the event itself, &ithout &hich there could have #een no accident, and those acts of the victi$ not entering into it, independent of it #ut contri#uting to his o&n proper hurt.D ##TC %. CA &G'R' No' %*))*+- ..1 SCRA 0.%- .% 23n# %,,15 Pag# $ 6
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
4egalado, J.: ue diligence in the selection and supervision of its e$ployees is $ore often honored in the #reach than in the o#servance. According to Article 71!G and 71!!, in relation to Article 7180, of the Civil Code provisions on 6uasi(delicts as all the ele$ents thereof are present, to &it: +1- da$ages suffered #y the plaintiff, +7- fault or negligence of the defendant or so$e other person for &hose act he $ust respond, and +B- the connection of cause and effect #et&een fault or negligence of the defendant and the da$ages incurred #y plaintiff. The pertinent parts of &hich provides that e$ployers shall #e lia#le for da$ages caused #y their e$ployees and household helpers acting &ithin the scope of their assigned tas*s, even though the for$er are not engaged in any #usiness or industry. The responsi#ility treated of in this article shall cease &hen the persons herein $entioned prove that they o#served all the diligence of a good father of a fa$ily to prevent da$age. This arises #y virtue of a presu$ption /uristantu$ of negligence on the part of the persons $ade responsi#le under the article, derived fro$ their failure to eercise due care and vigilance over the acts of su#ordinates to prevent the$ fro$ causing da$age. >egligence is i$puted to the$ #y la&, unless they prove the contrary. )t should #e #orne in $ind that the legal o#ligation of e$ployers to o#serve due diligence in the selection and supervision of e$ployees is not to #e considered as an e$pty play of &ords or a $ere for$alis$, as appears to #e the fashion of the ti$es, since the non(o#servance thereof actually #eco$es the #asis of their vicarious lia#ility under Article 7180. ue diligence in the supervision of e$ployees includes for$ulation of rules and regulations for the guidance of e$ployees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the pu#lic persons &ith &ho$ the e$ployer has relations through his or its e$ployees. )t also includes disciplinary $easures in cases of #reach of the e$ployee to the regulations.
A6uino, J.: The civil action for the civil lia#ility is dee$ed i$pliedly instituted &ith the cri$inal action in the a#sence of epress &aiver or its reservation in a separate action. ?hen the action is for the recovery of $oney and the defendant dies #efore final /udg$ent in the Court of irst )nstance, it Pag# $ +
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
shall #e dis$issed to #e prosecuted in the $anner especially provided in the 4ule of Court. The i$plication is that if the defendant dies after a $oney /udg$ent had #een rendered against hi$ #y the Court of irst )nstance, the action survives hi$. )n so$e instances an accounta#le pu#lic officer $ay still #e civilly lia#le for the funds i$properly dis#ursed although he has no cri$inal lia#ility. EOLE %. BA:OTAS &G'R' No' %*.**6- .17 SCRA .00- *. S#8t#9b#r %,,)5
4o$ero, J.: )n the Sendaydiego case, although Article B0 &as not applied in the final deter$ination of the civil lia#ility there &as a reopening of the cri$inal case to deter$ine his civil lia#ility. The court reiterated that upon death of the accused pending the appeal of his conviction the cri$inal action is etinguished in as $uch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil lia#ility e delicto is ipso facto etinguished grounded as it is on the cri$inal. Also the court e$phasied that the clai$ for civil lia#ility survives not&ithstanding the death of accused if the sa$e $ay also #e predicated in a source of o#ligation other than delict. And if the civil lia#ility survives in accordance &ith the afore$entioned, an action for recovery therefor $ay #e pursued #ut only #y &ay of filing a separate civil action. 0DA. DE A#AN %. SENERIS &G'R' No' L(1671.- %%0 SCRA 6*,- 1* 23l4 %,+.5
uerrero, J.: According the Section 1, 4ule 111 of the 4ules of Court &hen a cri$inal action is instituted the civil action for recovery of civil lia#ility arising fro$ the offense charged is i$pliedly instituted &ith the cri$inal action, unless the offended party epressly &aives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately.D )t $eans that the civil action $ay #e tried and prosecuted, &ith all the ancillary processes provided #y la&. 0ILLEGAS %. CA &G'R' No' +.07.- .6% SCRA %)+- %% A8ril %,,65
4o$ero, J.: As the court held in the case of 5eople v. Kayotas: the survival of the civil lia#ility depends on &hether the sa$e can #e predicated on sources of o#ligations other than delict; The clai$ for Pag# $ ,
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
civil lia#ility is also etinguished together &ith the cri$inal action if it &ere solely #ased thereon, i.e civil lia#ility e delicto. The clai$ for civil lia#ility survives not&ithstanding the death of accused if the sa$e $ay also #e predicated in a source of o#ligation other than delict. And if the civil lia#ility survives in accordance &ith the afore$entioned, an action for recovery therefor $ay #e pursued #ut only #y &ay of filing a separate civil action. 7EIRS O) T7E LATE TEODORO G/ARING, JR. %. CA &G'R' No' %*+1,0- .7, SCRA .+1- *6 :ar/ %,,65
2endoa, J.: The present action &as instituted pursuant to Art. 71!G of the Civil Code, &hich provides: Art. 71!G. ?hoever #y act or o$ission causes da$age to another, there #eing fault or negligence, is o#liged to pay for the da$age done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre(eisting contractual relation #et&een the parties, is called a 6uasi(delict and is governed #y the provisions of this Chapter. )t is no& settled that the ac6uittal of the accused, even if #ased on a finding that he is not guilty, does not carry &ith it the etinction of the civil lia#ility #ased on 6uasi delict. Iven if da$ages are sought on the #asis of cri$e and not 6uasi delict, the ac6uittal of the #us driver &ill not #ar recovery of da$ages if the ac6uittal &as #ased not on a finding that he &as not guilty #ut only on reasona#le dou#t. )n the present case, the ac6uittal of the #us driver &as #ecause of the 4TC entertaining reasona#le dou#t to his guilt. The appellate court erred in s*ipping the revie& of the evidence in this case and #ased its decision on the findings of the trial court in the cri$inal case. Ky doing this, the appellate court disregarded the fact that this case had #een instituted independently of the cri$inal case and that petitioners herein too* no part in the cri$inal prosecution. AG/ILAR, Sr. %. CO##ERCIAL SA0INGS BAN@ &G'R' No' %.+6*0- 17 SCRA 1,0- ., 23n# .**%5
'uisu$#ing, J.: The Supre$e Court stated the past ruling fro$ the case of KA inance Corporation v. CA that the registered o&ner of any vehicle, even if not for pu#lic service, is pri$arily responsi#le to third persons for any da$ages it caused. Also, the court held in the case of Ireo v. Jepte that the rationale for holding the registered o&ner of a vehicle to #e directly lia#le is that registration is re6uired not to $a*e said registration the operative act #y &hich o&nership in vehicle is transferred #ut to per$it the use and operation of the vehicle upon any pu#lic high&ay. The Pag# $ %*
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
$ain ai$ of the $otor vehicle registration is to identify the o&ner in case any da$age or in/ury is caused #y the vehicle on pu#lic high&ays, responsi#ility therefor can #e fied on a definite individual, the registered o&ner. 5. CO#LIANCE O) RESTATIONS a1 GENERALL: * ART. &9 <1 SECI)ICALL: i. TO GI0E >REAL OBLIGATION1 * ARTS. &&( TO && ii. TO DO >ERSONAL OBLIGATION1 * ART. &&2 iii. NOT TO DO >ERSONAL OBLIGATION1 * ART. &&4 +. BREAC7 O) OBLIGATIONS a1 CA/SES? ART. &&26 i. )RA/D &. ART. &&2& 0S. ART. &((4 -. DOLO INCIDENTE 0S. DOLO CA/SANTE ii. NEGLIGENCE &. ARTS. &&2- AND &&2( -. C/LA CONTRACT/AL 0S. C/LA A/ILIANA >OR C/LA E'CONTRACT/1 (. )ORT/ITO/S E0ENT * ART. &&25 a1 RE/ISITES O) )ORT/ITO/S E0ENT
"strand, J.: The court agrees &ith the ruling of the lo&er court &hen it found that the defendants lia#ility is contractual. Ky entering in the contract of carriage, he #ound hi$self to deliver the plaintiffs safely and securely to their destination and having failed to do so, he is lia#le for da$ages, ecept in ti$es &hen such #reach occurred in accordance &ith the Article 110 +no& Article 11!=- &hich states: Pag# $ %%
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
>o one shall #e lia#le for events &hich could not #e foreseen or &hich, even if foreseen, &ere inevita#le, &ith the eception of the cases in &hich the la& epressly provides other&ise and those in &hich the o#ligation itself i$poses such lia#ility. The Supre$e Court stated that the epression Fevents &hich cannot #e foreseen and &hich having #een foreseen, are inevita#leF is synony$ous &ith the ter$ Ffortuitous eventF +casofortuito- of &hich so$e etraordinary circu$stance independent of the &ill of the o#ligor, or of his e$ployees, is one of the essential ele$ents. SER0ANDO %. 7ILIINE STEA# NA0IGATION CO. &G'R No' L(17)+%- %%6 SCRA +1.- .1 Otob#r %,+.5
Iscolin, J.: The court agrees &ith the validity of the provision in the #ill of lading, as it is not contrary to la&, $orals or pu#lic policy. Though the plaintiffs contend that they did not sign it, it &as held that they &ere #ound #y the provisions thereof, as previously held in the case of "ngLui v. CA. Also, the 6uestioned provision is a $ere iteration of the #asic principle of la& in Article 11!= of the Civil Code &hich pertains to the ee$ption of the o#ligor fro$ lia#ility in cases of loss due to fortuitous events. 'uoting the Inciclopedia Juridicada Ispanola, the court enu$erated the characteristics of a fortuitous event: +1- the cause of the unforeseen and unepected occurrence, or of the failure of the de#tor to co$ply &ith his o#ligation, $ust #e independent of the hu$an &ill +7- it $ust #e i$possi#le to foresee the event &hich constitutes the casofortuito, or if it can #e foreseen, it $ust #e i$possi#le to avoid +B- the occurrence $ust #e such as to render it i$possi#le for the de#tor to fulfill his o#ligation in a nor$al $anner and +=- the o#ligor $ust #e free fro$ any participation in the aggravation of the in/ury resulting to the creditor. A/STRIA %. CA &G'R' No' L(.,7)*- 1, SCRA 0.6- %* 23n# %,6%5
4eyes, J.K.%., J.: The Article 11!= of the Civil Code provides for the etinction of lia#ility of the de#tors or o#ligors in cases of fortuitous events. Casoortuito&ould ee$pt a person fro$ responsi#ility of the loss of an o#/ect of an o#ligation if all of its characteristics are present: Pag# $ %.
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
+1+7+B-
the event $ust #e independent of the hu$an &ill +or rather, of the de#tors or o#ligors- the occurrence $ust render it i$possi#le for the de#tor to fulfill the o#ligation in a nor$al $anner and that the o#ligor $ust #e free of participation in or aggravation of the in/ury to the creditor.
To #e a#le to #e ee$pted in accordance &ith the a#ove provision, the court held that it is not necessary that the persons responsi#le for the event to #e found or punished. )t is sufficient to esta#lish that the enforcea#le event happened did ta*e place &ithout any concurrent fault on the de#tors part and can #e done &ith preponderance of evidence. 3o&ever, to co$pletely free the de#tor fro$ the lia#ility #y fortuitous event, such de#tor $ust #e free fro$ any contri#utory fault or negligence. O0ERSEAS BAN@ O) #ANILA %. CA &G'R' No' L(),101- %*0 SCRA ),- %% 23n# %,+%5
Karredo, J.: The Court ta*es /udicial notice that &hat ena#les a #an* to pay stipulated interest on $oney deposited &ith it is that through the other aspects of its operation it is a#le to generate funds to cover the pay$ent of such interest. @nless a #an* can lend $oney, engage in international transactions, ac6uire foreclosed $ortgaged properties or their proceeds and generally engage in other #an*ing and financing activities fro$ &hich it can derive inco$e, it is inconceiva#le ho& it can carry on as a depository o#ligated to pay stipulated interest. O0ERSEAS BAN@ O) #ANILA %. CA &G'R' No' L(110+.- %%1 SCRA 66+- 1* :ar/ %,+.5
Iscolin, J.: The court reiterated the doctrine founded in the case of "verseas Kan* of 2anila v. CA. The Court ta*es notice that &hat ena#les a #an* to pay stipulated interest on $oney deposited &ith it is that through the other aspects of its operation it is a#le to generate funds to cover the pay$ent of such interest. @nless a #an* can lend $oney, engage in international transactions, ac6uire foreclosed $ortgaged properties or their proceeds and generally engage in other #an*ing and financing activities fro$ &hich it can derive inco$e, it is inconceiva#le ho& it can carry on as a depository o#ligated to pay stipulated interest. 0AS/E; %. CA Pag# $ %1
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
&G'R' No' L().,.7- %1 S#8t#9b#r %,+05
2elencio(3errera, J.: The court agrees &ith the decision of the trial court. To avail of the defense of fortuitous events, it $ust #e independent of hu$an &ill, such occurrence $ust render it i$possi#le for the o#ligor to fulfill the o#ligation in the nor$al $anner, and that the o#ligor $ust #e free of participation in, or aggravation of, the in/ury to the creditor. )t $ust #e i$possi#le to foresee, or if it can #e foreseen, $ust have #een i$possi#le to avoid. S3EET LINES, INC. %. CA &G'R' No' L()71)*- %.% SCRA 67,- .+ A8ril %,+15
2elencio(3errera, J.: Article 7770 states that $oral da$ages are /ustly due in #reaches of contract &here the defendant acted fraudulently or in #ad faith. The court defined #ad faith as a #reach of a *no&n duty through so$e $otive or interest or ill&ill. Self(enrich$ent or fraternal interest, and not personal ill&ill $ay have #een the $otive, #ut it is $alice nevertheless. The court held that there is #ad faith &hen defendants(appellants did not give notice to plaintiffs( appellees as to the change of schedule of the vessel, &hile *no&ing fully &ell that it &ould ta*e no less than fifteen hours to effect the repairs of the da$aged engine, defendants( appellants instead $ade announce$ent of assurance that the vessel &ould leave &ithin a short period of ti$e, and &hen plaintiffs(appellees &anted to leave the port and gave up the trip, defendants(appellants e$ployees &ould co$e and say, &e are leaving, already and &hen defendants(appellants did not offer to refund plaintiffs(appellees tic*ets nor provide the$ &ith transportation fro$ Taclo#an City to Cat#alogan. J/NTILLA %. )ONTANAR &G'R' No' L()0716- %17 SCRA 7.0- 1% :a4 %,+05
utierre, J.: Citing the case of %asa$ v. S$ith, the court laid do&n the essential characteristics of fortuitous event, such as it $ust #e independent of hu$an &ill, such occurrence $ust render it i$possi#le for the o#ligor to fulfill the o#ligation in the nor$al $anner, the o#ligor $ust #e free of participation in, or aggravation of, the in/ury to the creditor and it $ust also #e i$possi#le to foresee or if it can #e foreseen, it $ust #e inevita#le. 0ICTORIAS LANTERS ASSOCIATION %. 0ICTORIAS #ILLING CO., INC. Pag# $ %)
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
&G'R' No' L(77)+- ,6 P/il 1%+- .0 23l4 %,005
5adilla, J.: The court stated ortuitous Ivent relieves the o#ligor fro$ fulfilling the contractual o#ligation under Article 11!= of the Civil Code. The stipulation regarding the fortuitous events in the contract and its suspension, should such events happen, only relieves the parties fro$ the fulfil$ent of the respective o#ligations during that ti$e. )t doesnt stop the period of the contract. iii.
i%.
DELA: &. ART. &&9 -. @INDS O) DELA: a1 #ORA SOL0ENDI i. E RE ii. E ERSONA <1 #ORA ACCIIENDI i. RE/ISITES =1 CO#ENSATIO #ORAE CONTRA0ENTION O) T7E TENOR
4egala, J.: According to Article 11!0 of the Civil Code, Those &ho in the perfor$ance of their o#ligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those &ho in any $anner contravene the tenor thereof, are lia#le in da$ages.D )n the said provision it stated that in general, every de#tor &ho fails to fulfill his o#ligation is lia#le for da$ages, not only those &ho are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay. The phrase any $anner contravene the tenorD includes any illicit acts &hich i$pairs the strict and faithful fulfill$ent of the o#ligation or every *ind of defective perfor$ance. The lia#ility of the appellant started not alone in the failure or ina#ility to satisfy the conditions provided #y the 5>K, #ut fro$ its &illful and deli#erate assu$ption of contractual o#ligations Pag# $ %0
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
even as it &as a&are of the financial incapacity to underta*e such. )t is evident that >A4)C &as *no&ledgea#le of this financial position as it has stated in the trans$ittal letter that they do not have sufficient deposit &ith 5>K to cover the re6uired a$ount. SS.G/ANIO %. #A@ATI S7ANGRI'LA 7OTEL an" RESORT, INC. &G'R' No'%,*7*%- *6 F#br3ar4 .*%%5
Carpio(2orales, J.: The court held that since the co$plaint rose fro$ a contract, the doctrine of proi$ate cause cannot #e applied. The doctrine of proi$ate cause is only applica#le on actions for 6uasi( delicts and not on actions involving #reach of contract. And thus the Article 11!0 is the applica#le rule in this case. Article 11!0 states Those &ho in the perfor$ance of their o#ligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those &ho in any $anner contravene the tenor thereof, are lia#le in da$ages.D Kreach of contract is defined as the failure &ithout legal reason to co$ply &ith the ter$s of a contract. iven the respondents vast eperience, it is safe to presu$e that it is not the first ti$e it encounters events #oo*ed eceeding the guaranteed cover. The respondents ad$itted the three hotel functions coincided &ith the petitioners event. The delay in service $ight have #een avoided or $ini$ied if respondents eercised prescience in scheduling events. The Court also stated that no less than 6uality service should #e delivered especially in events &hich possi#ility of repetition is close to none. . RE#EDIES )OR BREAC7 a1 ETRA'J/DICIAL >NO CO/RT ACTION NEEDED1 ARTS. &+- AND &+9<1 J/DICIAL >CO/RT ACTION NEEDED1 i. RINCIAL RE#EDIES &. ARTS. &&+, &&2, &&4 AND &&9& CASES? CENTRAL BAN@ O) T7E 7ILIINES %. CA &G'R' No' L()06%*- %1,
*
SCRA )7- *1 Otob#r %,+05
2a*asiar, CJ.: )n reciprocal o#ligations, the o#ligation or pro$ise of each party is the consideration for that of the other and &hen one party has perfor$ed or is ready and &illing to perfor$ his part of the contract, the other party &ho has not perfor$ed or is not ready and &illing to perfor$ incurs in Pag# $ %7
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
delay as stated in Article 11G9 of the Civil Code.2oreover Article 1191 stated that in reciprocal o#ligations, in cases of the o#ligors should not co$ply &ith &hat is incu$#ent upon hi$, the in/ured party $ay choose #et&een the perfor$ance of the o#ligation or the rescission of the o#ligation. )n the present case, since the )sland Savings Kan* &as in default in not fulfilling the reciprocal o#ligation under the loan agree$ent, Tolentino $ay choose #et&een specific perfor$ance or rescission &ith da$ages in either case. 3o&ever, since the #an* &as for#idden #y the 2onetary Koard to do further #usiness, the court cannot grant the petition of Tolentino for specific perfor$ance. 4escission is the only re$edy left. The court ruled that the rescission should only #e on the part of the a$ount of 5hpGB,000.00 as it is the default of the #an* as the 5hp 1!,000.00 &as already given to Tolentino. Tolentinos eecution of the pro$issory note gave rise to his o#ligation to pay the 5hp1!,000.00 &hen it #eca$e due. A:SON'SI#ON %. ADA#OS &G'R' No' L(1,16+- %1% SCRA )1,- .+ A3g3st %,+)5
2elencio(3errera, J.: The rule &hen the in/ured party can only choose #et&een fulfil$ent and rescission of the o#ligation, and cannot have #oth, applies only to o#ligations &hich its fulfil$ent is possi#le. Article 1191 allo&s the in/ured party to see* rescission even after see*ing for its fulfil$ent provided that the fulfil$ent of the o#ligation is dee$ed i$possi#le. GABO:A %. C/I &G'R' No' L(%,7%)- 1+ SCRA +0- .6 :ar/ %,6%5
4eyes, J.K.%., J.: The argu$ent of the appellants invo*ing Article !1 has not convinced the court. According to the$, Article == to =G of the Civil Code pertaining to industrial accession #y $odification on the principal land, such accession is li$ited to either to #uildings erected on the land of another, or #uildings constructed #y the o&ner of the land &ith $aterials o&ner #y so$eone else. 2oreover, Article == stated has esta#lished the #asic rule of industrial accession and prescri#es: F?hatever is #uilt, planted or so&n on the land of another, and the i$prove$ents or repairs $ade thereon, #elong to the o&ner of the land su#/ect to the provisions of the follo&ing articles.F ?hile Article ==9 stated that: F3e &ho #uilds, plants or so&s in #ad faith on the land of another, loses &hat is #uilt, planted or so&n &ithout right to inde$nity.D There is none in the provision of the civil code &hich particularly epresses the present case: a lando&ner #uilding on their o&n lot &ith their o&n $aterials. Pag# $ %6
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
Castro, J.: According to the Article 1191 of the Civil Code, The po&er to rescind o#ligations is i$plied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the o#ligors should not co$ply &ith &hat is incu$#ent upon hi$D and that The in/ured party $ay choose #et&een the fulfill$ent and the rescission of the o#ligation, &ith the pay$ent of da$ages in either case. 3e $ay also see* rescission even after he has chosen fulfill$ent, if the latter should #eco$e i$possi#le.D Though rescission of a contract &ill not #e per$itted for a slight or casual #reach and only for such su#stantial and funda$ental #reach as &ould defeat the very o#/ect of the parties in $a*ing the agree$ent. RO#AN %. CA &G'R' No' 66).0- %16 SCRA 071- %, 23n# %,,%5
4egalado, J.: @nder Article !G= of the Civil Code an action for the revocation of a donation $ust #e #rought &ithin four +=- years fro$ the non(co$pliance of the conditions of the donation. Article !B7 of the Civil Code provides that donations inter vivos shall #e governed #y the general provisions on contracts and o#ligations in all that is not deter$ined in Title ))), Koo* ))) on donations. The Title ))) does not have an eplicit provision on the $atter of a donation &ith a resolutory condition and &hich is su#/ect to an epress provision that the sa$e shall #e considered ipso facto revo*ed upon the #reach of said resolutory condition i$posed in the deed therefor. ?hen a deed of donation epressly provides for auto$atic revocation and reversion of the property donated, the rules on contract and the general rules on prescription should apply, and not Article !G= of the Civil Code. 2oreover, the court reiterated the doctrine that a /udicial action is proper only &hen there is a#sence of a special provision granting the po&er of cancellation. The validity of such a stipulation in the deed of donation providing for the auto$atic reversion of the donated property to the donor upon non(co$pliance of the condition &as upheld in the recent case of e %una, et al. vs. A#rigo, et al &here the Supre$e Court held that such stipulation is in the nature of an agree$ent granting a party the right to rescind a contract unilaterally in case of #reach, &ithout need of going to court, and that, upon the happening of the resolutory condition or non(co$pliance &ith the conditions of the contract, the donation is auto$atically revo*ed &ithout need of a /udicial declaration to that effect. SONGC/AN 0. IAC &G'R' No' 60*,7- %,% SCRA .+- ., Otob#r %,,*5
Pag# $ %+
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
2edialdea, J.: Article 1191 is not applica#le in the present case. The o#ligation is not reciprocal, #ecause to define reciprocal o#ligations, the o#ligation of one is a resolutory condition of the o#ligation of the other, the non(fulfill$ent of &hich entitles the other party to rescind the contract. )n the present case, there are t&o and distinct o#ligations &hich is independent of the other: Songcuans o#ligation is to reconvey the property and Alviars is to lease the pre$ises to the for$er. Koth is not dependent of the other. SANC7O %. LI;ARRAGA &G'R' No' L(110+*- 00 P/il 7*%- *7 F#br3ar4 %,1%5
4o$ualde, J.: The provision of Article 117= is not applica#le in the present case as it pertains to resolutions of o#ligations in general. 3o&ever, Articles 1G81 and 1G87 refers to contract partnerships. )n the present case, though the defendant failed to pay for the &hole a$ount he had #ound hi$self to pay, the plaintiff $ay still not ac6uire the right to de$and rescission. The defendant $ay have inde#ted hi$self to the partnership &ith interest and da$ages #ut rescission under Article 117= cannot #e invo*ed. )t is a &ell settled rule that special provisions prevail over general ones. CALTE 7ILIINES, INC. %. IAC &G'R' No' 6)61*- %67 SCRA 6)%- .0 A3g3st %,+,5
2edialdea, J.: or non(pay$ent of a note secured #y $ortgage, the creditor has a single cause of action against the de#tor. This single cause of action consists in the recovery of the credit &ith eecution of the security. )n other &ords, the creditor in his action $ay $a*e t&o de$ands, the pay$ent of the de#t and the foreclosure of his $ortgage. Kut #oth de$ands arise fro$ the sa$e cause, the non(pay$ent of the de#t, and, for that reason, they constitute a single cause of action. Though the de#t and the $ortgage constitute separate agree$ents, the latter is su#sidiary to the for$er, and #oth refer to one and the sa$e o#ligation. S/RIA %. IAC &G'R' No' 61+,1- %0% SCRA 77%- 1* 23n# %,+65
utierre, J.: Pag# $ %,
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
Art. 1B8B of the Civil Code provides: provides: The action for rescission rescission is su#sidiary su#sidiary it cannot #e instituted ecept &hen the party suffering da$age has no other legal $eans to o#tain reparation for the sa$e.D Also, According According to Article 1=8, #y the contract of sale, the vendor o#ligates hi$self to transfer the o&nership of and to deliver a deter$inate thing to the #uyer, &ho in turn, is o#ligated to pay a price certain in $oney or its e6uivalent. ii.
S/BSIDIA IDIAR R: RE#EDIE IES S &. ART. &&2 &&222 iii. ANCIL ILL LAR: RE#E RE#ED DIE IES S &. ATT TTAC7#EN AC7#ENT T, RELE0IN, GARNIS7#ENT GARNIS7#ENT,, RECEI0ERS7I RECEI0ERS7I,, EA#INATION O) DEBTOR, ETC. 2. @INDS @INDS O) OBLI OBLIGA GATI TION ON a1 /RE /RE AND AND COND CONDITI ITION ONAL AL i. @INDS O) O) CONDITION LIEBENO3 %. 7ILIINE 0EGETABLE OIL CO#AN: &G'R No' %1)71- 1, P/il 7*- *, No;#9b#r %,%+5
Street, J.: According According to the Article 1B08, then Article 17G provides provides that the validity and perfor$ance perfor$ance of a contract cannot #e left to the &ill of one of the contracting parties. The pro$ise to provide #onus creates a legal o#ligation #inding upon the pro$isor. This *ind of pro$ise is not nugatory, under Article 1187, then 111, as e$#odying a condition condition dependent dependent eclusively eclusively upon the &ill of the o#ligor. Also, under Article 1B=9, then Article 17!B, ; The fact that the 6uantity is not deter$inate shall not#e an o#stacle to the eistence of the contract;D )n the present present case, the uncertainty of the a$ount of the #onus does not #ar the validity of the contract. 2oreover, the pro$ise is a#solute and unconditional. )t is not conditioned upon satisfactory satisfactory service nor to the duration of the service nor upon the profits profits earned. These $ay operate upon the $inds of the #oard of directors, directors, #ut these are unconnected unconnected to legal right of the plaintiff to to receive receive so$ething so$ething as a #onus. #onus. TRILLANA %. /E;ON COLLEGE &G'R' No' L(0**1- ,1 P/il 1+1- .6 23n# %,015
5aras, J.: According According to the then Article 111, and no& the Article 1187, of the Civil Code, ?hen the fulfill$ent of the condition depends upon the sole &ill of the de#tor, de#tor, the conditional conditional o#ligation o#ligation Pag# $ .*
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
shall #e void.)f it depends upon chance or upon the &ill of a third third person, the o#ligation o#ligation shall ta*e effect in confor$ity &ith the provisions of thisCode.D )n the present present case, case, the proposal proposal of a$asa a$asa Crisosto$o Crisosto$o to pay pay the value of of the su#scription su#scription after after she has harvested harvested fish is a condition condition o#viously dependent upon her sole &ill. )t is facultative in nature, &hich according to the a#ove stated provision is void. TIBLE %. A/INO A/INO &G'R' No' L(.+,76- 70 SCRA .*6- .. 23l4 %,605
Isguerra, Isguerra, J.: Article 111, 111, or presently presently the Article 1187, 1187, of the Civil Code states that ?hen the fulfill$ent of the condition depends upon the sole &ill of the de#tor, the conditional o#ligation shall #e void...D )n the present case, the condition for the pay$ent of the a$ounts sho&n in the pro$issory pro$issory notes &as clearly dependent upon Ti#les operation of the forest concession that he ac6uired fro$ A6uino. )t is undou#tedly undou#tedly a void conditional conditional o#ligation, o#ligation, since its fulfil$ent fulfil$ent is $ade to depend on the eclusive &ill of the de#tor, &hich is Ti#le and on &hether or not he &ill operate the ti$#er concession. ATENTE %. O#EGA &G'R' No' L())11- ,1 P/il .%+- ., :a4 %,015
5a#lo, J.: Article 111 111 of the old Civil Code states that ?hen the fulfil$ent of the condition depends on the &ill of the de#tor, the conditional o#ligation shall #e null and void...D Also Article 1178 of the sa$e code provides that if the o#ligation does not indicate the ter$, #ut its nature and circu$stances , it is deduced that iti is intended to #e granted to the de#tor, the court shall deter$ine the duration of that de#t. )n the present present case, the pro$issory pro$issory note does not epress epress the period &ithin &hich the de#t $ust #e paid.. )t &as left to the discretion of the de#tor as to &hen to pay his de#t. )n applying the Article 1178 1178 of the old civil code, it is the court &ho shall deter$ine deter$ine the period. As stated #y the Supre$e Court, it is unfair to leave it at the eclusive discretion of the de#tor. CENTRAL 7ILIINE /NI0ERSIT: %. CA &G'R' No' %%.%.6- .)7 SCRA 0%%0%%- %6 23l4 %,,05
Pag# $ .%
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
Kellosillo, Kellosillo, J. M
?hen a donati donation on i$poses i$poses a #urd #urden en e6uival e6uivalent ent to the the a$ount a$ount of the the donation donation,, the donatio donationn is onerous. @nder Article 1181 of the Civil Code, on conditional o#ligations, the ac6uisition of rights, as &ell as the etinguish$ent or loss of those already ac6uired, shall depend upon the happening of the event &hich constitutes the condition. ?hen a person donates land to another on the condition that the latter &ould #uild upon the land a school, the condition i$posed &as not a condition precedent or a suspensive condition #ut a resolutory one. )f there &as no co$pliance &ith the condition, the donation $ay no& #e revo*ed and all rights &hich the donee $ay have ac6uired under it shall #e dee$ed lost and etinguished.
M
The CA #ased #ased their their decisi decision on on the genera generall rule provid provided ed in the Art. Art. 119! 119! of the the Civil Civil Code applies, &hich provides that the courts $ay fi the duration thereof #ecause the fulfill$ent of the o#ligation itself cannot #e de$anded until after the court has fied the period for co$pliance there&ith and such period has arrived. According According to the Supre$e Supre$e Court, ho&ever, ho&ever, the general rule cannot #e applied in the present case. or the span of fifty +0- years the petitioner &as given a ti$e to co$ply &ith tghe conditions of the donation. 3o&ever, the petitioners &ere still una#le to create a $edical college in the parcel of land donated #y the late on 4a$on %ope. As the SC stated: 5etitioner has slept on its o#ligation for an unreasona#le length of ti$e.D. Thus it is only fair that the donation donation #e dee$ed ineffective ineffective and revo*ed revo*ed in favor of the herein herein private respondents. i.
E))ECTS O) O) CONDITION LA)ORTE;A %. #AC7/CA
&G'R' No' %1600.- 111 SCRA 7)1- %7 23n# .***5
onaga(4eyes, J.: ailure ailure to co$ply &ith &ith condition condition i$posed upon the perfection perfection of the contract contract results results in the the failure failure of a contract, contract, &hile the the failure failure to co$ply &ith &ith condition condition i$posed i$posed on the perfor$ance perfor$ance of of an o#ligation only gives the other party the option either to refuse to proceed &ith the sale or to &aive the condition. According to Article 1=, ?here the o#ligation of either party to a contract of sale is su#/ect to any condition &hich is not perfor$ed, such party $ay refuse to proceed proceed &ith the the contract contract or he $ay &aive &aive perfor$ance perfor$ance of the the condition. condition. )f the other other party has has pro$ised pro$ised that the the condition condition should happen happen or #e perfor$ed, perfor$ed, such first $entioned $entioned party party $ay also also treat the non(perfor$ance of the condition as a #reach of &arranty...D CALERO %. CARRION Pag# $ ..
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
&G'R' No' L(%1.)7- %*6 P/il 0),- 1* :ar/ %,7*5
Karrera, Karrera, J.: According According to Article 119! )f the o#ligation o#ligation does not fi a period, #ut fro$ fro$ its nature nature and the circu$stances it can #e inferred that a period &as intended, the courts $ay fi the duration thereof. The courts shall also fi the duration of the period &hen it depends upon the &ill of the de#tor. )n every case, the courts shall deter$ine such period as $ay under the circu$stances have #een pro#a#ly conte$plated #y the parties. "nce fied #y the courts, the period cannot #e changed #y the$.D Itra/udicial Itra/udicial de$and is not essential for the creation of the cause of action to have the period fied. )t eists #y operation operation of la& fro$ the $o$ent such an agree$ent agree$ent su#/ect to an undeter$ined period is entered into, &hether the period depends upon the &ill of the de#tor alone, or of the parties the$selves, or &here fro$ the nature and the circu$stances of the o#ligation it can #e inferred that a period &as intended. BORRO#EO %. CA &G'R' No' L(..,7.- )6 SCRA 70- .+ S#8t#9b#r %,6.5
ernando, ernando, J.: According According to the Article 1B!0, )t is a funda$ental funda$ental principle in the interpretation interpretation of contracts contracts that &hile ordinarily the literal sense of the &ords e$ployed is to #e follo&ed, such is not the case &here they Fappear to #e contrary to the evident intention of the contracting parties,F &hich intention shall prevailD. The rule is that a la&ful pro$ise $ade for a la&ful consideration is not invalid $erely #ecause an unla&ful pro$ise &as $ade at the sa$e ti$e and for the sa$e consideration, and this rule applies, although the invalidity is due to violation of a statutory provision, provision, unless the statute epressly or #y necessary i$plication declares declares the entire entire contract void. GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. %. 7ILIINE S/GAR ESTATE DE0ELO#ENT CO. &G'R' No' ..00+- .* SCRA 11*- 1% :a4 %,765 %,76 5
4eyes, J.K.%., J.K.%., J.: Article 119! of the Civil Code is applica#le applica#le in cases &here &here the period is not stipulated stipulated in the contract. 2oreover, this provision clearly stated that periods cannot #e set ar#itrarily and that the the period periodss to #e deter deter$in $ined ed #y the court court shall #e pro# pro#a# a#le le that that the parties parties $ust $ust have have conte$plated such period. or the court to proceed into deter$ining the period &ithin &hich the o#ligation $ust #e co$plied &ith, it $ust #e included in the co$plaint. Pag# $ .1
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
)n the present present case, the deed deed of sale epressly epressly stated stated that the contract contract &ith responden respondentt 5hilippine 5hilippine Sugar Istates evelop$ent Co., %td. gave petitioner regorio Araneta, )nc. Freasona#le ti$e &ithin &hich to co$ply &ith its o#ligation to construct and co$plete the streets.F The contract so provided provided that there there &as a period fied, a Freasona#le Freasona#le ti$eF and all that the court should have done &as to deter$ine if that reasona#le ti$e had already elapsed &hen suit &as filed if it had passed, then then the court should should declare declare that that petitioner petitioner had #reached #reached the the contract, contract, as averred averred in the co$plaint, and fi the resulting da$ages. 2oreover 2oreover,, should it #e said that there &as no fied ti$e in the co$plaint not having sought that the Court should set a period, the court could not proceed to do so unless the co$plaint in as first a$ended. And granted that this is &ithin the po&er to #e deter$ined deter$ined #y the court, the a$ended decision is still untena#le as no #asis is stated to support the conclusion that the period should #e set at t&o years after finality of the /udg$ent. The trial Court appears to have pulled the t&o(year period set in its decision out of thin air, since no circu$stances are $entioned to support it. it. C7A0ES %. GON;ALES &G'R' No' L(.6)0)- 1. SCRA 0)6- 1* A8ril %,6*5
4eyes, J.K.%., J.K.%., J.: ?here the ti$e for co$pliance had epired and there &as #reach of contract #y non( perfor$ance, perfor$ance, it &as acade$ic acade$ic for the plaintiff plaintiff to have first first petitioned petitioned the court court to fi a period period for the perfor$ance of the contract #efore filing his co$plaint. 3o&ever in in the present present case, case, they intended intended that the the defendant defendant &as to finish finish it at so$e future future ti$e although such ti$e &as not specified and that such ti$e had passed &ithout the &or* having #een acco$plished. the defendant ad$itted hi$self that he returned the type&riter canni#alied and unrepaired, &hich is clearly a #reach of his o#ligation. efendant cannot invo*e Article 119! of the Civil Code for he virtually ad$itted non(perfor$ance #y returning the type&riter that he &as o#liged to repair in a non(&or*ing condition, &ith essential parts $issing. The fiing of a period &ould thus #e a $ere for$ality and &ould serve no purpose than to delay. RADIO3EALT7 )INANCE CO#AN: %s. DEL ROSARIO &G'R' No' %1+61,' 110 SCRA .++ 23l4 7< .***'5
5A>A>) 5A>A>)KA>, KA>, J: "K%) "K%)A AT) T)"> ">S: S: ?)T3 ?)T3 A 5I 5I4) 4)" ":: ?3I> ?3I> C"@4 C"@4TS TS 2AL 2AL >"T >"T )NI )NI 5I4) 5I4)" ":: C">T C">TI2 I25" 5"4A 4A>" >"@S @S )>TI )>TI>T >T:: 4esp 4espon onde dent ntss theo theori rie e that that the the acti action on for for i$$e i$$edi diat atee Pag# $ .)
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
enforce$ent enforce$ent of their o#ligation o#ligation is pre$atur pre$aturee #ecause its fulfill$ent fulfill$ent is dependent dependent on the sole &ill of the de#tor. 3ence, they consider that the proper court should first fi a period for pay$ent, pursuant to Articles Articles 1180 1180 and 119! 119! of the Civil Civil Code. This contention is untena#le. The act of leaving #lan* the due date of the first install$ent did not necessarily $ean that the de#tors &ere allo&ed to pay as and &hen they could. )f this &as the intention of the parties, they should have so indicated in the 5ro$issory >ote. 3o&ever, 3o&ever, it did not reflect reflect any such such intention. intention. Eerily, the conte$poraneous and su#se6uent acts of the parties $anifest their intention and *no&ledge that the $onthly install$ents &ould #e due and de$anda#le each $onth. )n this case, the conclusion that the install$ents had already #eca$e due and de$anda#le is #olstered #y the fact that responden respondents ts started paying paying install$ents install$ents on the 5ro$issory 5ro$issory >ote, >ote, even if the chec*s chec*s &ere &ere dishonored #y their dra&ee #an*. ?e are convinced neither #y their avo&als that the o#ligation had not yet $atured nor #y their clai$ that a period for pay$ent should #e fied #y a court. B/CCAT %s. DISO &G'R' No' L())11+- A8ril %0< %,++5
Sar$iento, J: "K%)AT)">S: ?)T3 A 5I4)": ?3I> T3I 4)3T " ACT)"> "4 T3I )N)> " T3I 5I4)" 5I4)" " %IASI %IASI ACC4@I: ACC4@I: ?e hold that it &as only in >ove$#er >ove$#er 19!7 that the cause of action for the fiing of the period of lease accrued. This is as it should #e #ecause prior to that, the validity of the second contract of lease &as #eing challenged. The case for unla&ful detainer filed #y the plaintiff(appellee #eca$e in fact a case 6uestioning the validity of the second contract on the grounds grounds that the said contract contract &as si$ulated and that there there &as no consideration. The plaintiff(appellee could not have #een epected to file an action for the fiing of the period of the lease #efore the Court of Appeals pro$ulgated its decision #ecause she &as not yet a&are that the said paragraph of the second contract &as a provision that called for an indefinite period. or the reason that the very eistence, and su#se6uently, the interpretation of the second contract of lease, particularly par. B thereof, &ere put in issue in the unla&ful detai detaine nerr case, case, the court court tryin tryingg the the case case &as re6uir e6uired ed to interp interprret the prov provisi ision onss of, and and conse6uently, rule on the validity of the said contract. This &as precisely &hat the trial courts decision &hich &as affir$ed #y the Court of Appeals, in fact, resolved. And in confor$ity &ith the suggestion of the said court, the plaintiff(appellee filed the present case. The re$edy or the cause of action for the filing of a case for the fiing of a period in the contract, therefore, only accrued &hen the court finally declared the second contract valid #ut that the provision as to the period &as indefinite and hence, an action for the fiing of the period of the contract had to #e filed. urther$ore urther$ore,, should the plaintiff(appellee plaintiff(appellee have opted to file a case for the fiing of the period of the lease contract #efore the ter$ination of the unla&ful detainer case, the latter case Pag# $ .0
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
&ould have #een rendered $oot and acade$ic and the plaintiff(appellee &ould have inevita#ly and un&ittingly ratified the second contract. >o person in his right $ind &ould have done such. DAG/7O: ENTERRISES, INC. %s. ONCE &G'R' No' L(70%0' Otob#r %+< %,0)'5
2onte$ayor 2onte$ayor, J: "K%) "K%)A AT) T)"> "> A> A> C">T C">T4A 4ACT CTS S %"A> %"A>S S "K%) "K%)A AT) T)"> "> ?)T3 ?)T3 A5 A5I4 I4)" )" 5@4I 5@4I "K%)AT)">. O Although the original loan, including its increased a$ount, &as paya#le &ithin si years, and so did not #eco$e due and paya#le until the epiration thereof, the de#tor lost the #enefit of the period #y reason of her failure to give and register the security agreed upon in the for$ of the t&o deeds of $ortgage and so the o#ligation #eca$e pure and &ithout any condition. Conse6uently, the loan #eca$e due and i$$ediately de$anda#le "K%)AT)"> A> C">T4ACTS %"A>SI5"S)T " T3I A2"@>T " T3I %"A> )> A>"T3I4 ACT)"> )S >"T I'@)EA%I>T I'@)EA%I>T T" 5AL2I>T AL2I>T IKT"4 )S >"T 4I%)IEI 4I%)IEI 4"2 5AL2I>T 5AL2I>T " )>TI4IST )>TI4IST.. O The deposit $ade #y the the de#tor, de#tor, in another action action separate and different fro$ the present, in favor of the creditor, though eventually &ould #e given to the latter, did not relieve the de#tor fro$ the pay$ent of interest fro$ the ti$e of the deposit #ecause it did not a$ount to the pay$ent of the loan. =1 ALTERNA ALTERNATI0E TI0E AND AND )AC/L )AC/LT TATI0E * ARTS. ARTS. &&99 TO TO &-6 "1 JOINT AND SOLIDAR SOLIDAR: : * ARTS. ARTS. &-62 TO TO &--7ILIINE NATIONAL NATIONAL BAN@ %s. AS/NCION &G'R' No' L()7*,0- No;#9b#r .1< %,665
2a*asiar, 2a*asiar, J: J")>T A> S"%)A4)%L S"%)A4)%L "K%)AT)">S: "K%)AT)">S: Article 171G of the >e& Civil Code gives the creditor the right to Fproceed against anyone of the solidary de#tors or so$e or all of the$ si$ultaneously si$ultaneously.F .F The choice is undou#tedly left to the solidary creditor to deter$ine against &ho$ he &ill enforce collection. )n case of the death of one of the solidary de#tors, he +the creditor- $ay, if he so chooses, proceed against the surviving solidary de#tors &ithout necessity of filing a clai$ in the estate of the deceased de#tors. )t is not $andatory for hi$ to have the case dis$issed as against the surviving de#tors and file its clai$ against the estate of the deceased solidary de#tor, as &as $ade apparent in the afore6uoted decision. or to re6uire the creditor to proceed against the estate, $a*ing it a condition precedent for any collection action against the surviving de#tors to prosper prosper,, &ould deprive hi$ of his su#stantive su#stantive rights provided #y Article 171G of the >e& Civil Code. Pag# $ .7
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
Arrellano. Arrellano. J: C">J")>T A> S"%)A4L "K%)AT)">S ACT)"> KL T3I C4I)T"4 AA)>ST A>L " T3I IKT"4S IICTS " A S@KSI'@I>T )>ST4@2I>T. O ?hen the o#ligation is a solidary one, the creditor $ay #ring his action in toto against any of the de#tors o#ligated in solidu$ and although although the creditor $ay have, #y $eans of a su#se6uent instru$ent, covenanted &ith so$e of the solidary de#tors different periods of pay$ent and different conditions, not on this account $ay it #e understood that the solidarity stipulated in the previous instru$ent has #een #ro*en. e1 DI0ISIB DI0ISIBLE LE AND AND INDI0I INDI0ISIBL SIBLE E * ARTS. ARTS. &--( &--( TO &--+ 1 3IT7 3IT7 A ENAL ENAL CLA/ CLA/SE SE * AR ARTS. &-- &-- TO TO &-(6 #A@ATI #A@ATI DE0ELO#ENT CORORATION %s. E#IRE INS/RANCE CO. &G'R' No' L(.%6+*' 23n# 1*< %,76'5
C)E)% C)E)% %A? %A? "K%)A "K%)AT)"> T)">SS A> C">T4AC C">T4ACTS TS 5I>A% 5I>A% C%A@SI, C%A@SI, 2)T)A 2)T)AT)"> T)"> ". ". O ?here a contract of sale of real property i$poses a Fspecial conditionF upon the vendee to construct a house thereon and co$plete at least 0P of such construction &ithin t&o years other&ise the surety #ond of 517,000.00 &ould #e forfeited in favor of the vendor, such Fspecial conditionF is in reality an o#ligation &ith a penal clause, and the o#ligors lia#ility $ay #e $itigated pursuant to Article 1779 of the Civil Code, considering that such penalty is intended not to inde$nify the vendor for any da$age it $ight suffer as a result of a #reach of contract, #ut rather to co$pel perfor$ance and thus encourage ho$e #uilding a$ong lot o&ners in the @rdaneta Eillage. C)E)% C)E)% %A? %A? "K%) "K%)A AT)">S T)">S A> A> C">T4 C">T4AC ACTS TS 54 54)E )E)TL )TL " C">T C">TACT ACT 5A4 A4T)A T)A% % 5I4"42A>CI 5I4"42A>CI KL T3)4 5I4S">. O ?here the vendee in the case at #ar has sold the lot to a third person &ho, #efore the epiration of the stipulated period of t&o years, had fenced the pre$ises pre$ises &ith a stone &all, stoc*ed #uilding $aterials therein therein &ithin said period, and had co$pleted, although #elatedly, very $uch $ore than the 0P stipulated, there &as a partial perfor$ance perfor$ance of the o#ligation &ithin the $eaning of Art. 1779 of the Civil Code and the ruling in the case of en. )ns. Q Surety Corp. vs. 4epu#lic, %(1B8!B, January B1, 19GB, &here there &as no partial perfor$ance, cannot #e invo*ed as authority for the forfeiture of the full a$ount of the #ond. )ndeed the stipulation in this case to co$$ence the construction and co$plete at least 0P of the vendees house &ithin t&o years cannot #e construed as i$posing a strictly personal o#ligation o#ligation on hi$. To To adopt such such a construction construction &ould &ould #e to li$it li$it his right to dispose of Pag# $ .6
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
the lot. There is nothing in the deed of sale restricting his right to sell the lot at least &ithin the t&o(year period, and &e thin* it plain that a reading of such a li$itation on one of the rights of o&nership $ust rest on $ore eplicit language in the contract. )t cannot #e left to $ere inference. CO##ERCIAL CREDIT CORORATION O) CAGA:AN DE ORO, etitioner, %s. T7E CO/RT O) AEALS &G'R' No' 6+1%0- 2an3ar4 .< %,+,5
angayco,J: 2"))CAT)"> " C"254"2)SI J@2I>T @>I4 A4T)C%I 1779 " T3I >.C.C. >"T A55%)CAK%I T" A )>A% A> INIC@T"4L J@2I>T.O Article 1779 of the Civil Code applies only to o#ligations or contract, su#/ect of a litigation, the condition #eing that the sa$e has #een partly or irregularly co$plied &ith #y the de#tor. The provision also applies even if there has #een no perfor$ance, as long as the penalty is ini6uituous or unconsciona#le. )t cannot apply to a final and eecutory /udg$ent. ?hen the parties entered into the said co$pro$ise agree$ent and su#$itted the sa$e for the approval of the trial court, its ter$s and conditions $ust #e the pri$ordial consideration &hy the parties voluntarily entered into the sa$e. The trial court approved it #ecause it is la&ful, and is not against pu#lic policy or $orals. Iven the respondent Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the said co$pro$ise agree$ent. 3ence, the respondent court has no authority to reduce the penalty and attorneys fees therein stipulated &hich is the la& #et&een the parties and is res /udicata. RADIO3EALT7 )INANCE CO#AN: %s. DEL ROSARIO, &G'R' No' %1+61,' 110 SCRA .++ 23l4 7< .***'5
5A>A>)KA>, J: "K%)AT)">S: ?)T3 A 5I>A%TL: ?here a contract of sale of real property i$poses a Fspecial conditionF upon the vendee to construct a house thereon and co$plete at least 0P of such construction &ithin t&o years other&ise the surety #ond of 517,000.00 &ould #e forfeited in favor of the vendor, such Fspecial conditionF is in reality an o#ligation &ith a penal clause, and the o#ligors lia#ility $ay #e $itigated pursuant to Article 1779 of the Civil Code, considering that such penalty is intended not to inde$nify the vendor for any da$age it $ight suffer as a result of a #reach of contract, #ut rather to co$pel perfor$ance and thus encourage ho$e #uilding a$ong lot o&ners in the @rdaneta Eillage 4. ETING/IS7#ENT O) OBLIGATIONS A. #ODES * ART. &-(& TEJ/CO %s . E. R. S/IBB SON Pag# $ .+
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
&G'R' No' L(%%*0.- A8ril 1*< %,0+5
5A4AS, J: "K%)AT)">S A> C">T4ACTS INT)>@)S32I>T " "K%)AT)">S 2"IS. O @pon the other hand, Article 17B1 of the Civil Code is to the effect that F. . . other causes of etinguish$ent of o#ligations, such as annul$ent, rescission, fulfill$ent of a resolutory condition, and prescription, are governed else&here in this Code.F "n the $atter of prescription, the applica#le provision is Article 1179 of the Civil Code &hich states that Factions prescri#e #y $ere lapse of ti$e fied #y la&.F This necessarily leads us to Article 11=! of the Civil Code &hich re6uires that an action for defa$ation $ust #e filed &ithin one year. The #road ter$ Fdefa$ationF in the a#sence of any other specific provisions, includes li#el. SA/RA I#ORT EORT CO., INC. %s. DE0ELO#ENT BAN@ O) T7E 7ILIINES &G'R' No' L(.),7+- A8ril .6< %,6.5
2ARA%)>TA%, J: C)E)% %A? "K%)AT)">S A> C">T4ACTS C">T4ACTS 5I4ICT)"> @5"> ACCI5TA>CI " 54"2)SI T" I%)EI4 S"2IT3)> KL ?AL " S)25%I %"A> A4T. 19= " T3I C)E)% C"I. O ?here the application of Saura )nc. for a loan of 500,000.00 &as approved #y resolution of the defendant, and the corresponding $ortgage eecuted and registered, there is undou#tedly offer and acceptance and ?e hold that there &as indeed a perfected consensual contract as recognied in Article 19= of the Civil Code. INT)>@)S32I>T " "K%)AT)"> KL 2@T@A% IS)STA>CI )> )>STA>T CASI. O ?hen 4C turned do&n the re6uest of Saura )nc., the negotiations &hich had #een going on for the i$ple$entation of the agree$ent reached an i$passe. Saura )nc., o#viously &as in no position to co$ply &ith 4Cs conditions. So instead of doing so and insisting that the loan #e released as agreed upon, Saura )nc., as*ed that the $ortgage #e cancelled, &hich &as done on June 1, 19. The action thus ta*en #y #oth parties &as in the nature of $utual desistance O &hat 2anresa ter$s F$utuo disensoF O &hich is a $ode of etinguishing o#ligations. )t is a concept that derives fro$ the principle that since $utual agree$ent #y the parties can create a contract, $utual disagree$ent #y the parties can cause its etinguish$ent. B. A:#ENT OR ER)OR#ANCE * ART. &-(I. C7ARACTERISTICS &. INTEGRIT: O) A:#ENT * ART. &-(( A. ECETIONS * ARTS. &-(5 AND &-(+ -. IDENTIT: O) A:#ENT * ART. &-55 Pag# $ .,
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
A. ECETION * ART. &-5+ (. INDI0ISIBILIT: O) A:#ENT * ART. &-54 A. ECETION * ART. &-5+ II. 37O CAN #A@E A:#ENT * ARTS. &-( TO &-(9
GON;AGA %s. GARCIA &G'R' No' +.0)-:ar/ 1< %,%)5
T4I>T,J: EI>"4 A> 5@4C3ASI4 INIC@T)"> SA%I " 4)3T T" 4I5@4C3ASI S@KSI'@I>T SA%I KL INIC@T)"> 5@4C3ASI4. O A /udg$ent creditor purchased the right to repurchase under a pacto de retro sale of land of his /udg$ent de#tor, at an eecution sale. The period for rede$ption of the interest thus sold under eecution epired &ithout the /udg$ent de#tors having eercised his right of rede$ption. The latter did, ho&ever, tender the repurchase price under the pacto de retro contract to the vendee, &ho accepted it, at the sa$e ti$e canceling the annotation of the said contract in the property registry. 5etitioners clai$ of o&nership of the land, #ased on a su#se6uent purchase fro$ the /udg$ent creditor, &as invalid, as the latter did not ac6uire the fee #y the repurchase of the land under the pacto de retro contract #y the /udg$ent de#tor. Article 118 of the Civil Code is not applica#le to this case for the reason that the /udg$ent creditor &as not a de#tor of the pacto de retro vendee. 3aving ac6uired the right to repurchase, the eercise of this right &as optional &ith hi$. SISON %s. BALGOS &G'R' No' %*1*0- S#8t#9b#r 0< %,%75
A4I%%A>", CJ: "K%)AT)">S 5AL2I>T ?3" CA> 2ARI T3I 5AL2I>T. O Any person, &hether he has an interest or not in the fulfill$ent of the o#ligation, and &hether the de#tor *no&s approves it or is not a&are thereof, can $a*e the pay$ent. +Civil Code, art. 118.III. TO 37O# CAN A:#ENT BE #ADE * ARTS. &-56 TO &-5( I0. A:#ENT O) DEBTS IN #ONE: * ART. &-59 &. SEC. & O) RA +-9 >E))ECTI0IT:? & J/NE &9+61, AS A#ENDED B: RA 5&66 Pag# $ 1*
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
-. SEC. & AND - O) RA 4&4( >&& J/NE &991 B/ENA0ENT/RA %s. CO/RT O) AEALS &G'R' No' L()1+1*- 2an3ar4 ..< %,,*5
I4>A>, J: @>)"42 C@44I>CL ACT +4I5@K%)C ACT >". 79- I>I4A% 4@%I "> 5AL2I>T " "K%)AT)"> )> C@44I>CL "T3I4 T3A> T3I 53)%)55)>I C@44I>CL INCI5T)">. O An agree$ent to pay an o#ligation in a currency other than 5hilippine currency is null and void as contrary to pu#lic policy, &hat the la& specifically prohi#its is pay$ent in currency other than legal tender #ut does not defeat a creditors clai$ for pay$ent. A contrary rule &ould allo& a person to profit or enrich hi$self ine6uita#ly at anothers epense. ?ith regard to o#ligations incurred prior to the effectivity of 4epu#lic Act >o. 79 re6uiring pay$ent in a particular *ind of coin or currency other than 5hilippine currency, it is specifically provided that the sa$e shall #e discharged in 5hilippine currency $easured at the prevailing rate of echange at the ti$e the o#ligation &as incurred ecept in case of a loan $ade in a foreign currency stipulated to #e paya#le in the sa$e currency in &hich case the rate of echange prevailing at the stipulated date of pay$ent shall prevail. )n the case #efore @s, petitioners o#ligation &as incurred after the enact$ent of 4epu#lic Act >o. 79, as a$ended. As held in Ralalo vs. %u +supra- and as correctly relied upon #y respondent appellate court, the rate of echange should #e that prevailing at the ti$e of pay$ent. (. LEGAL TENDER * SECS. (& AND (- O) D2- >&& NO0E#BER &92-1 A. COINS * CIRC/LAR NO. +(2 0. A:#ENT IN #ERCANTILE DOC/#ENT * -ND ARAGRA7 O) ART. &-59 NE3 ACI)IC TI#BER S/L: CO#AN:, INC. %s. SENERIS &G'R' No' L()%67)- "##9b#r %,< %,+*5
C">CI5C)">, J4., J:
OBLICON: PAYMENT IN MERCANTILE. — It is a well-known an a!!e"te "ra!ti!e in t#e $%siness se!tor t#at a Cas#ier&s C#e!k is ee'e as !as#. Moreo(er, sin!e t#e sai !#e!k #a $een !erti)ie $* t#e rawee $ank, $* t#e !erti)i!ation, t#e )%ns re"resente $* t#e !#e!k are trans)erre )ro' t#e !reit o) t#e 'aker to t#at o) t#e "a*ee or #oler, an )or all intents an "%r"oses, t#e latter $e!o'es t#e e"ositor o) t#e rawee $ank, wit# ri+#ts an %ties o) one in s%!# sit%ation. #ere a !#e!k is !erti)ie $* t#e $ank on w#i!# it is rawn, t#e !erti)i!ation is e%i(alent to a!!e"tan!e. ai !erti)i!ation /i'"lies t#at t#e !#e!k is rawn %"on s%))i!ient Pag# $ 1%
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
)%ns in t#e #ans o) t#e rawee, t#at t#e* #a(e $een set a"art )or its satis)a!tion, an t#at t#e* s#all $e so a""lie w#ene(er t#e !#e!k is "resente )or "a*'ent. It is an %nerstanin+ t#at t#e !#e!k is +oo t#en, an s#all !ontin%e to $e +oo, an t#is a+ree'ent is as $inin+ on t#e $ank as its notes in !ir!%lation, a !erti)i!ate o) e"osit "a*a$le to t#e orer o) t#e e"ositor, or an* ot#er o$li+ation it !an ass%'e.
5A)%%A, J: C)E)% %A? INT)>@)S32I>T " "K%)AT)">S 5AL2I>T "4 5I4"42A>CI %IA% TI>I4 CAS3)I4S C3ICR )S >"T %IA% TI>I4. O )n the recent cases of 5hilippine Airlines, )nc. vs. Court of Appeals and 4o$an Catholic Kishop of 2alolos, )nc. vs. )nter$ediate Appellate Court, this Court held that O FA chec*, &hether a $anagers chec* or ordinary chec*, is not legal tender, and an offer of a chec* in pay$ent of a de#t is not a valid tender of pay$ent and $ay #e refused receipt #y the o#ligee or creditor.F The ruling in these t&o +7- cases $erely applies the statutory provisions &hich lay do&n the rule that a chec* is not legal tender and that a creditor $ay validly refuse pay$ent #y chec*, &hether it #e a $anagers, cashiers or personal chec*. 5etitioners erroneously rely on one of the dissenting opinions in the 5hilippine Airlines case to support their cause. The dissenting opinion ho&ever does not in any &ay support the contention that a chec* is legal tender #ut, on the contrary, states that F)f the 5A% chec*s in 6uestion had not #een encashed #y Sheriff 4eyes, there &ould #e no pay$ent #y the 5A% and, conse6uently, no discharge or satisfaction of its /udg$ent o#ligation.F 2oreover, the circu$stances in the 5hilippine Airlines case are 6uite different fro$ those in the case at #ar for in that case the chec*s issued #y the /udg$ent de#tor &ere $ade paya#le to the sheriff, I$ilio <. 4eyes, &ho encashed the chec*s #ut failed to deliver the proceeds of said encash$ent to the /udg$ent creditor. )n the $ore recent case of ortunado vs. Court of Appeals, this Court stressed that, F?e are not, #y this decision, sanctioning the use of a chec* for the pay$ent of o#ligations over the o#/ection of the creditor.F )ORT/NADO %s. CO/RT O) AEALS &G'R' No' 6+007' A8ril .0< %,,%'5
C4@<, J.: C)E)% %A? INT)>@)S32I>T " "K%)AT)">S 5AL2I>T "4 5I4"42A>CI %IA% TI>I4 CAS3)I4S C3ICR )S >"T %IA% TI>I4. O )n the recent cases of Pag# $ 1.
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
5hilippine Airlines, )nc. vs. Court of Appeals and 4o$an Catholic Kishop of 2alolos, )nc. vs. )nter$ediate Appellate Court, this Court held that O FA chec*, &hether a $anagers chec* or ordinary chec*, is not legal tender, and an offer of a chec* in pay$ent of a de#t is not a valid tender of pay$ent and $ay #e refused receipt #y the o#ligee or creditor.F The ruling in these t&o +7- cases $erely applies the statutory provisions &hich lay do&n the rule that a chec* is not legal tender and that a creditor $ay validly refuse pay$ent #y chec*, &hether it #e a $anagers, cashiers or personal chec*. 5etitioners erroneously rely on one of the dissenting opinions in the 5hilippine Airlines case to support their cause. The dissenting opinion ho&ever does not in any &ay support the contention that a chec* is legal tender #ut, on the contrary, states that F)f the 5A% chec*s in 6uestion had not #een encashed #y Sheriff 4eyes, there &ould #e no pay$ent #y the 5A% and, conse6uently, no discharge or satisfaction of its /udg$ent o#ligation.F 2oreover, the circu$stances in the 5hilippine Airlines case are 6uite different fro$ those in the case at #ar for in that case the chec*s issued #y the /udg$ent de#tor &ere $ade paya#le to the sheriff, I$ilio <. 4eyes, &ho encashed the chec*s #ut failed to deliver the proceeds of said encash$ent to the /udg$ent creditor. )n the $ore recent case of ortunado vs. Court of Appeals, this Court stressed that, F?e are not, #y this decision, sanctioning the use of a chec* for the pay$ent of o#ligations over the o#/ection of the creditor.F CO %s. 7ILIINE NATIONAL BAN@ &G'R' No' L(0%676- 23n# .,< %,+.5
KA44I", J: TI>I4 " C3ICR S@)C)I>T T" C"25I% 4II25T)"> K@T )S >"T )> )TSI% A 5AL2I>T. O ?e are not, #y this decision, sanctioning the use of a chec* for the pay$ent of o#ligations over the o#/ection of the creditor. ?hat &e are saying is that a chec* $ay #e used for the eercise of the right of rede$ption, the sa$e #eing a right and not an o#ligation. The tender of a chec* is sufficient to co$pel rede$ption #ut is not in itself a pay$ent that relieves the rede$ptioner fro$ his lia#ility to pay the rede$ption price. )n other &ords, &hile &e hold that the private respondents properly eercised their right of rede$ption, they re$ain lia#le, of course, for the pay$ent of the rede$ption price. NATIONAL #AR@ETING CORORATION %s. )EDERATION O) /NITED NA#ARCO DISTRIB/TORS, INC. &G'R' No' L(..06+- 2an3ar4 1%< %,615
A>T">)", J: C)E)% %A? "K%)AT)">S A> C">T4ACTS 5AL2I>T 2I4I I%)EI4L " >I"T)AK%I "C@2I>TS "IS >"T C">ST)T@TI 5AL2I>T. O The $ere delivery #y II4AT)"> of the do$estic letters of credit to >A2A4C" did not operate to discharge the de#t of II4AT)">. As sho&n #y the appealed /udg$ent, >A2A4C" accepted the three Pag# $ 11
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
letters of credit Fto insure the pay$ent of those goods #y the II4AT)"> . . .F They &ere given therefore as $ere guarantee for the pay$ent of the $erchandise. The delivery of pro$issory notes paya#le to order, or #ills of echange or drafts or other $ercantile docu$ent shall produce the effect of pay$ent only &hen realied, or &hen #y the fault of the creditor, the privileges inherent in their negotia#le character have #een i$paired 0I. ETRA'ORDINAR: IN)LATION OR DE)LATION O) T7E C/RRENC: * ART. &-+6 )ILIINO IE AND )O/NDR: CORORATION %s. NATIONAL 3ATER3OR@S AND SE3ERAGE A/T7ORIT: &G'R' No' L()1))7- :a4 1< %,++5
4)"(A'@)>", J: C)E)% %A? "K%)AT)">S A> C">T4ACTS INT4A("4)>A4L )>%AT)">, I)>I. O Itraordinary inflation eists &hen Fthere is a decrease or increase in the purchasing po&er of the 5hilippine currency &hich is unusual or #eyond the co$$on fluctuation in the value of said currency, and such decrease or increase could not have #een reasona#ly foreseen or &as $anifestly #eyond the conte$plation of the parties at the ti$e of the esta#lish$ent of the o#ligation. #OBIL OIL 7ILIINES, INC. %s. CO/RT O) AEALS &G'R' No' 0+%..' "##9b#r .,< %,+,'5
5A4AS, J: C)E)% %A? "K%)AT)"> A> C">T4ACTS EA%@I " T3I C@44I>CL AT T3I T)2I " T3I ISTAK%)S32I>T " T3I "K%)AT)"> 2AL >"T KI A55%)I ?)T3"@T A 54"5I4 IC%A4AT)"> " T3I IN)STI>CI " INT4A"4)>A4L )>%AT)"> "4 I%AT)">. O "n the second issue for ad/ust$ent clai$s, private respondent has no #asis in contract or in la&. 5arenthetically, the principle ?e laid do&n in the case of Co$$issioner of 5u#lic 3igh&ays vs. Kurgos +9G SC4A 8B1- can #e applied here, to &it: F. . . an agree$ent is needed for the effects of an etraordinary inflation to #e ta*en into account to alter the value of the currency at the ti$e of the esta#lish$ent of the o#ligation &hich, as a rule, is al&ays the deter$inative ele$ent, to #e varied #y agree$ent that &ould find reason only in the supervention of etraordinary inflation or deflation.F +pp. 8B!(8B8 e$phasis supplied- 2oreover, in his concurring opinion in the sa$e case, Justice Claudio Teehan*ee stated: F) concur in the result &ith the o#servation that the state$ents in the $ain opinion re the applica#ility or non( applica#ility of Article 170 of the Civil Code should #e ta*en as o#iter dicta, since said article $ay not #e invo*ed nor applied &ithout a proper declaration of etraordinary inflation or deflation of currency #y the co$petent authorities. )n the case at #ar, the o#ligation of the Pag# $ 1)
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
petitioner, if any, is #ased on la& since the sa$e calls for the application of the Civil Code provisions on da$ages. 2oreover, there has #een no official pronounce$ent or declaration of the eistence of etraordinary inflation or deflation. -. 37EN ARTICLE &-+6 DOES NOT AL: >OBLIGATIONS, NOT CONTRACT/AL1? 0ELASCO, %s. #ANILA ELECTRIC CO., ET AL., &G'R' No' L(%+1,*' "##9b#r .*< %,6%'5
4ILIS, JK% C)E)% %A? "K%)AT)">S 5AL2I>T A4T)C%I 170 A55%)IS T" C">T4ACT@A% "K%)AT)">S, >"T T" T"4TS AS )> CASI AT KA4. O )t can #e seen fro$ the e$ploy$ent of the &ords Fetraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulatedF that the legal rule envisages contractual o#ligations &here a specific currency is selected #y the parties as the $ediu$ of pay$ent hence it is inapplica#le to o#ligations arising fro$ tort and not fro$ contract, as in the case at #ar, #esides there #eing no sho&ing that the factual assu$ption of the article has co$e into eistence. CO##ISSIONER O) /BLIC 7IG73A:S %s. B/RGOS &G'R' No' L(176*7- :ar/ 1%< %,+*5
I CAST4", J: C)E)% %A? "K%)AT)">S 5AL2I>T ?3I> A4T)C%I 170 "IS >"T A55%L. O Article 170 of the >e& Civil Code see$s to #e the only provision in our statutes &hich provides for pay$ent of an o#ligation in an a$ount different fro$ &hat has #een agreed upon #y the parties #ecause of the supervention of etra(ordinary inflation or deflation. FA4T. 170. )n case etra( ordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the ti$e of the esta#lish$ent of the o#ligation shall #e the #asis of pay$ent, unless there is an agree$ent to the contrary.F )t is clear that the foregoing provision applies only to cases &here a contract or agree$ent is involved. )t does not apply &here the o#ligation to pay arises fro$ la&, independent of contract. The ta*ing of private property #y the overn$ent in the eercise of its po&er of vie& in the case of Eelasco vs. 2anila Ilectric Co., et al., %(19B90, ece$#er 79, 19!1.
ST. A/L )IRE #ARINE INS/RANCE CO. %s. #ACONDRA: CO., INC. &G'R' No' L(.66,7- :ar/ .0< %,675
A>T">)", J:
Pag# $ 10
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
EA%))TL " %)2)TAT)"> " CA44)I4S %)AK)%)TL. O The li$itation of the carriers lia#ility is sanctioned #y the freedo$ of the contracting parties to esta#lished such stipulations, clauses, ter$s, or conditions as they $ay dee$ convenient, provide they are not contrary to la&, $orals, good custo$s and pu#lic policy. A stipulation fiing or li$iting the su$ that $ay #e recovered fro$ the carrier on the loss or deterioration of the goods is valid provide it is +areasona#le and /ust under the circu$stances, and +#- has #een fairly and freely agreed upon. 0II. )OR#S O) A:#ENT &. ALICATION O) A:#ENT * ARTS. &-+- TO &-+5 REARATIONS CO##ISSION %s. /NI0ERSAL DEE'SEA )IS7ING CORORATION &G'R' Nos' L(.%,*% and L(.%,,7- 23n# .6< %,6+5
C">CI5T)">, J: "K%)AT)">S A> C">T4ACTS A55%)CAK)%)TL " A4T)C%IS 177 T" 17= " T3I >I? C)E)% C"I. O The rules contained in Articles 177 to 17= of the Civil Code apply to a person o&ing several de#ts of the sa$e *ind to a single creditor. They cannot #e $ade applica#le to a person &hose o#ligation as a $ere surety is #oth contingent and singular, &hich in this case is the full and faithful co$pliance &ith the ter$s of the contract of conditional purchase and sale of reparations goods. The o#ligation included the pay$ent, not only of the first install$ent in the a$ount of 5B,G=B.00, #ut also of the ten +10- e6ual yearly install$ents of 5G,9!.70 per annu$. The a$ount of 510,000.00 &as, indeed, deducted fro$ the a$ount of 5B,G=B.00, #ut then the first of the ten +10- e6ual yearly install$ents had also accrued hence, no error &as co$$itted in holding the surety co$pany to the full etent of its underta*ing. #AGDALENA ESTATES, INC. %s. RODRIG/E; &G'R' No' L(%+)%%- "##9b#r %6< %,775
4IA%A, J: "K%)AT)">S A55%)CAT)"> " 5AL2I>T A4TS. 177 A> 17=, C)E)% C"I, )>TI454ITI A4T. 17B, C.C., 2I4I%L )4ICT"4L A> >"T 2A>AT"4L. O The rules contained in Arts. 177 and 17= of the Civil Code applies to a person o&ing several de#ts of the sa$e *ind of a single creditor. They cannot #e $ade applica#le to a person &hose o#ligation as a $ere surety is #oth contingent and singular his lia#ility is confined to such o#ligation, and he is entitled to have all pay$ents $ade applied eclusively to said application and to no other. Kesides Art. 17B of the Civil Code is $erely directory, and not $andatory T7E BAC7RAC7 GARAGE AND TAICAB CO. >INC.1 %s. 0ICENTE GOLINGCO &G'R' No' %167%- 23l4 %.< %,%,5 Pag# $ 17
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
AEA>CIA, J.: 5AL2I>T )25@TAT)">. O 3e &ho o&es several de#ts of the sa$e *ind to a single creditor $ay declare, at the ti$e of $a*ing a pay$ent, to &hich of the$ it is to #e applied. +Article 11!7 Civil Code.- )f, in $a*ing use of this right, the defendant applied the pay$ent of 5!,000 to a de#t, he cannot clai$ that it #e applied to another de#t. T7E CO##ON3EALT7 O) T7E 7ILIINES %s . T7E )AR EASTERN S/RET: INS/RANCE CO#AN: &G'R' No' L(,6,- A8ril %1< %,),5
KI><">, J: S@4ITLS3)5 S"%)A4L %)AK)%)TL A55%)CAT)"> " 5AL2I>T. OF?here in a #ond the de#tor and surety have #ound the$selves solidarily, #ut li$iting the lia#ility of the surety to a lesser a$ount than that due fro$ the principal de#tor, any such pay$ent as the latter $ay have $ade on account of such o#ligation $ust #e applied first to the unsecured portion of the de#t, for, as regards the principal de#tor, the o#ligation is $ore onerous as to the a$ount not secured.F +3ong*ong Q Shanghai Kan*ing Corporation vs. Aldanese, =8 5hil., 990.-. A:#ENT B: CESSION >ART. &-++1 0S. DATION IN A:#ENTDACION EN AGO >ART. &-5+1 A. @INDS O) A:#ENT B: CESSION B. DATION IN A:#ENT AND A:#ENT B: CESSION DISTING/IS7ED (. TENDER O) A:#ENT AND CONSIGNATION ' ARTS. &-+ TO &-& A. SECIAL RE/ISITES O) CONSIGNATION DALTON %s. )GR REALT: AND DE0ELO#ENT CORORATION &G'R' No' %6.066- 2an3ar4 %,< .*%%5
CA45)", J.: OBLIGATIONS- E=TINGUISH:ENT OF OBLIGATIONS- PAY:ENTS- FOR:S OF PAY:ENT- TEN"ER OF PAY:ENT AN" CONSIGNATION- SPECIAL RE>UISITES OF CONSIGNATION' O )n )nsular %ife Assurance Co$pany, %td. v. Toyota Kel(Air, )nc. , the Court
enu$erated the re6uisites of a valid consignation: +1- a de#t due +7- the creditor to &ho$ tender of pay$ent &as $ade refused &ithout /ust cause to accept the pay$ent, or the creditor &as a#sent, un*no&n or incapacitated, or several persons clai$ed the sa$e right to collect, or the title of the o#ligation &as lost +B- the person interested in the perfor$ance of the o#ligation &as given notice #efore consignation &as $ade +=- the a$ount &as placed at the disposal of the Pag# $ 16
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
court and +- the person interested in the perfor$ance of the o#ligation &as given notice after the consignation &as $ade. B. 37EN TENDER NOT NECESSAR: * -ND ARAGRA7 O) ART. &-+ C. LOSS O) T7E T7ING D/E * ARTS. &-- TO &-9 I. DE)INITION * ART. &&49 >-1 II. LOSS IN OBLIGATION TO DO * ART. &- III. T7EOR: O) I#RE0ISIBILIT: >)R/STRATION O) ENTERRISE1 * ART. &-2 OCCEFA %s. JABSON &G'R' No' L())1),- Otob#r .,< %,675
TII3A>RII, J: OBLIGATIONS- E=TINGUISH:ENT OF OBLIGATIONS- LOSS OF THE THING "UETHEORY OF I:REVISIBILITY' O ?hile respondent court correctly cited in its decision the
Code Co$$issions report giving the rationale for Article 17G! of the Civil Code, to &it: FThe general rule is that i$possi#ility of perfor$ance releases the o#ligor. 3o&ever, it is su#$itted that &hen the service has #eco$e so difficult as to #e $anifestly #eyond the conte$plation of the parties, the court should #e authoried to release the o#ligor in &hole or in part. The intention of the parties should govern and if it appears that the service turns out to #e so difficult as have #een #eyond their conte$plation, it &ould #e doing violence to that intention to hold the o#ligor still responsi#le. . . .,F it $isapplied the sa$e to respondents co$plaint. I0. 37O BEARS T7E RIS@ O) LOSS * ARTS. &--, &-9, &&49 &. SEE ALSO ARTS. &+65, &++, &2&2 AND &&9& D. CONDONATION OR RE#ISSION O) DEBT * ARTS. &-26 TO &-25 E. CON)/SION OR #ERGER * ARTS. &-2+ TO &-22 ). CO#ENSATION * ARTS. &-24 TO &-96 I. @INDS O) CO#ENSATION II. RE/ISITES )OR LEGAL CO#ENSATION * ART. &-29 III. 37EN CO#ENSATION NOT ROER * ART. &-42 AND &-44 )RANCIA %s. INTER#EDIATE AELLATE CO/RT &G'R' No' 767),- 23n# .+< %,++5
@)TI44I<, J4 OBLIGATIONS- E=TINGUISH:ENT OF OBLIGATIONS- CO:PENSATION- WHEN CO:PENSATION NOT PROPER' O ?e have consistently ruled that there can #e no off(setting
of taes against the clai$s that the tapayer $ay have against the govern$ent. A person cannot Pag# $ 1+
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
refuse to pay a ta on the ground that the govern$ent o&es hi$ an a$ount e6ual to or greater than the ta #eing collected. The collection of a ta cannot a&ait the results of a la&suit against the govern$ent. G. NO0ATION * ARTS. &-9& TO &(65 I. @INDS? ETINCTI0E AND #ODI)ICATOR: &. ETINCTI0E A. RE/ISITES O) ETINCTI0E NO0ATION B. S/BSTIT/TION O) DEBTORS * ARTS. &-9( AND &-9+ C. ERO#ISSION * ART. &-95 D. DELEGACION * ART. &-9+ E. S/BROGATION * ART. &(66 TO &(65 I. LEGAL * ART. &(6II. CON0ENTIONAL * ART. &(6& -. #ODI)ICATOR:
:O/NG %. CA &G'R' No' 6,0%+ 2an3ar4 %1< %,+,5 OBLIGATIONS- E=TINGUISH:ENT OF OBLIGATIONS- NOVATION- :O"IFICATORYSTIPULATION POR ATRUI O The stipulation that young gave $ay #e a stipulation pour
autrui #ut it is unre#utted that she did not co$$unicate her acceptance &hether epressly or i$pliedly. The re6uisites of a stipulation pour autrui or a stipulation in favor of a third person are the follo&ing: +1- there $ust #e a stipulation in favor of a third person +7- the stipulation $ust #e a part, not the &hole of the contract +B- the contracting parties $ust have clearly and deli#erately conferred a favor upon a third person, not a $ere incidental #enefit or interest +=the third person $ust have co$$unicated his acceptance to the o#ligor #efore its revocation. +neither of the contracting parties #ears the legal representation or authoriation of the third party. The argu$ent is pointless, considering that the sale of su#/ect property to so$e other person or entity constitutes in effect a revocation of the grant of the right of first refusal to 4e#ecca C. Loung. 7ERNANDE;'NIE0ERA%s . 7ERNANDE; &G'R' No' %6%%70- F#br3ar4 %)< .*%%5
5I4A%TA, J: OBLIGATIONS- E=TINGUISH:ENT OF OBLIGATIONS- NOVATION- :O"IFICATORY O
e$etrio as attorney(in(fact, have agreed to novate the ter$s of the 2"A #y etinguishing the core o#ligations of 524C on the pay$ent of option $oney. This see$s to suggest that &ith the Pag# $ 1,
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
eecution of the AC, 524C has already entered into the eercise of its option ecept that its o#ligation to deliver the option $oney has, #y su#se6uent agree$ent e$#odied in the AC, #een su#stituted instead #y the o#ligation to issue participation certificates in e$etrios na$e #ut &hich, li*e&ise, has not yet #een perfor$ed #y 524C. #ILLAR %s. CO/RT O) AEALS &G'R' No' L(.,,+%- A8ril 1*< %,6%5
CAST4", J: C)E)% %A? INT)>@)S32I>T " "K%)AT)">S )25%)I >"EAT)"> "IS >"T TARI 5%ACI ) T3I T?" "K%)AT)">S A4I >"T )>C"25AT)K%I. O The defense of i$plied novation re6uires clear and convincing proof of co$plete inco$pati#ility #et&een the t&o o#ligations. +2agda Istates, )nc. v. 4odrigue and 4odrigue, %(18=11, ec. 1!, 19GG, 18 SC4A 9G!.- The la& re6uires no specific for$ for an effective novation #y i$plication. The test is &hether the t&o o#ligations can stand together. )f they cannot, inco$pati#ility arises, and the second o#ligation novates the first. )f they can stand together, no inco$pati#ility results and novation does not ta*e place. #ACONDRA: CO., INC. %s . R/I; &G'R' No' ))76%- No;#9b#r .7< %,1+5
)25I4)A%, J C">T4ACTS >"EAT)">. O According to article 170B of the Civil Code o#ligations are $odified #y altering their o#/ect or principal conditions, #y su#stituting another in place of the de#tor, or #y su#rogating a third person to the rights of creditor and article 170= provides that in order that an o#ligation $ay #e etinguished #y another &hich su#stitutes it, it shall #e necessary that it #e declared epressly, or that the old and ne& o#ligations #e inco$pati#le in every respect. )n the first contract the de#tors &ere 4 and K and they &ere ans&era#le /ointly and severally for the su$ of 5B,7!0. )n the second contract the de#tors &ere the sa$e 4 and I. C. and the a$ount for &hich they &ere lia#le &as only 57,7=G.18. )n the latter contract the dates of $aturity of the o#ligations &ere changed due to the lapse of ti$e and to the partial pay$ents $ade #y the for$er de#tors. These facts sho& at a glance that the first contract &as in its ter$s su#stituted #y the second, and that the latter &as inco$pati#le &ith the for$er.
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
CONTRACT- NOVATION- :O"IFICATORY' O e$etrio as attorney(in(fact, have agreed to
novate the ter$s of the 2"A #y etinguishing the core o#ligations of 524C on the pay$ent of option $oney. This see$s to suggest that &ith the eecution of the AC, 524C has already entered into the eercise of its option ecept that its o#ligation to deliver the option $oney has, #y su#se6uent agree$ent e$#odied in the AC, #een su#stituted instead #y the o#ligation to issue participation certificates in e$etrios na$e #ut &hich, li*e&ise, has not yet #een perfor$ed #y 524C. @ABAN@ALAN S/GAR CO., INC. %s. AC7ECO &G'R' No' 1170)' "##9b#r .,< %,1*'5
E)%%A(4IA%, J: C">T4ACT >"EAT)"> IASI2I>T " 4)3T " ?AL. O ?hen an ease$ent of right of &ay is one of the principal conditions of a contract, and the duration of said ease$ent is specified, the reduction of said period in a su#se6uent contract, &herein the sa$e o#ligation is one of the principal conditions, constitutes a novation and to that etent etinguishes the for$er contractual o#ligation. B. CONCET * ART. &&+9 C. C7ARACTERISTICS >TENETS1 O) CONTRACTS? I. A/TONO#: * ART. &(6 BANCO )ILIINO SA0INGS AND #ORTGAGE BAN@ %s. NA0ARRO &G'R' No' L()70,%' 23l4 .+< %,+6'5
2I%I>C)"(3I44I4A, J: CONTRACTS- CHARACTERISTICS- AUTONO:Y.O In Kanco ilipino Savings and
2ortgage Kan* vs. >avarro, 1 SC4A B=G +198!-, this Court disauthoried the #an* fro$ raising the interest rate on the #orro&ers loan fro$ 17P to 1!P despite an escalation clause in the loan agree$ent signed #y the de#tors authoriing Kanco ilipino Fto correspondingly increase the interest rate stipulated in this contract &ithout advance notice to $eus in the event a la& should #e enacted increasing the la&ful rates of interest that $ay #e charged on this particular *ind of loan.F
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
&G'R' No' +16)+- :a4 %.< %,+,'5
2I%I>C)"(3I44I4A, J: C)E)% %A? C">T4ACTS )>TI454ITAT)"> " C">T4ACTS %)TI4A% 2IA>)> " TI42)>"%")IS " C">T4ACT C">T4"% ?3I> T3IL A4I C%IA4. O The ter$inologies in the contract #eing clear, leaving no dou#t as to the intention of the contracting parties, their literal $eaning control +Article 1B!0, Civil Code-. "K%)AT)">S 3AEI "4CI " %A? KIT?II> C">T4ACT)> 5A4T)IS A> S3"@% KI C"25%)I ?)T3 )> "" A)T3 ?3I> A4)S)> 4"2 C">T4ACT. O The price escalation cost $ust #e dee$ed included in the final actual pro/ect cost and petitioner held entitled to the pay$ent of its additional professional fees. "#ligations arising fro$ contract have the force of la& #et&een the contracting parties and should #e co$plied &ith in good faith +Article 119, Civil Code-. 7ILIINE NATIONAL BAN@ %s. CO/RT O) AEALS &G'R' No' ++++*' A8ril 1*< %,,%'5
4)>"(A'@)>", J: C">T4ACTS C3A4ACTI4)ST)CS 2@T@A%)TL.O Kesides violating 5.. 11G, the unilateral action of the 5>K in increasing the interest rate on the private respondents loan, violated the $utuality of contracts ordained in Article 1B08 of the Civil Code: FA4T. 1B08. The contract $ust #ind #oth contracting parties its validity or co$pliance cannot #e left to the &ill of one of the$.F RE/BLIC O) T7E 7ILIINES %s. 7ILIINE LONG DISTANCE TELE7ONE CO#AN: &G'R' No' L(%++)%' 2an3ar4 .6< %,7,'5
4ILIS, J.K.% C)E)% %A? C">T4ACTS 4II"2 T" ST)5@%ATI TI42S A> C">)T)">S 5A4T)IS CA> >"T KI C"I4CI. O 5arties cannot #e coerced to enter into a contract &here no agree$ent is had #et&een the$ as to the principal ter$s and conditions of the contract. reedo$ to stipulate such ter$s and condition is of the essence of our contractual syste$, and #y epress provision of the statute, a contract $ay #e annulled if tainted #y violence, inti$idation or undue influence +Articles 1B0G, 1BBG, 1BB!, Civil Code of the 5hilippines-.
Pag# $ ).
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
ISC"%)>, J "K%)C">: 5@K%)C 5"%)CL. O Although not outrightly penalied as a cri$inal offense, the F*a#it syste$F is invaria#ly recognied as #eing contrary to pu#lic policy and, therefore, void and ineistent under Article 1=09 of the Civil Code. )t is a funda$ental principle that the court &ill not aid either party to enforce an illegal contract, #ut &ill leave the$ #oth &here it finds the$. @pon this pre$ise, it &as flagrant error on the part of #oth the trial and appellate courts to have accorded the parties relief fro$ their predica$ent. Article 1=17 of the Civil Code denies the$ such aid. C)E)% %A? "K%)AT)">S A> C">T4ACTS E") C">T4ACTS, CA>>"T KI C@4I KL 4AT))CAT)"> "4 54ISC4)5T)">. O The defect of ineistence of a contract is per$anent and incura#le, and cannot #e cured #y ratification or #y prescription. As this Court said in Iugenio vs. 5erdido, 9! 5hil. =1, Fthe $ere lapse of ti$e cannot give efficacy to contracts that are null and void.F C/I %s. ARELLANO /NI0ERSIT: &G'R' No' L(%0%.6- :a4 1*< %,7%'5
C">CI5C)">, J: C">T4ACTS ST@I>TS A> I@CAT)">A% )>ST)T@T)">S SC3"%A4S3)5S ST)5@%AT)"> ?3I4IKL ST@I>T CA>>"T T4A>SI4 T" A>"T3I4 SC3""% ?)T3"@T 4I@>)> SC3"%A4S3)5 CAS3 >@%% A> E"). O The stipulation in a contract, #et&een a student and the school, that the students scholarship is good only if he continues in the sa$e school, and that he &aives his right to transfer to another school &ithout refunding the e6uivalent of his scholarship in cash, is contrary to pu#lic policy and, hence, null and void, #ecause scholarships are a&arded in recognition of $erit and to help gifted students in &ho$ society has an esta#lished interest or a first lien, and not to *eep outstanding students in school to #olster its prestige and increase its #usiness potential.
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
C"4TI<, J: CONTRACTS- CHARACTERISTICS- AUTONO:Y- CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC POLICY' ?
The Supre$e Court ruled that the trial court cannot anchor the Ter$ination of ContractD theory the contract #et&een the school and the student is not an ordinary contract. )t is i$#ued &ith pu#lic interest, considering the high priority given #y the Constitution to education and the grant to the State of supervisory and regulatory po&ers over all educational institutions. )t is intended $erely to protect schools &herein tuition fees are collected and paid on install$ent #asis. )t cannot #e construed to $ean that a student shall #e enrolled for only one se$ester. CAITOL #EDICAL CENTER, INC %s. CO/RT O) AEALS &G'R' No' +.),,' Otob#r %1< %,+,'5
4)"(A'@)>", J: C">T4ACT I>4"%%2I>T "4 A SI2ISTI4 C">T4ACT ?)T3 T3I SC3""% II2I "4 T3I 5I4)" I>4"%%I A> 5A) "4. O The contract #et&een the college and a student &ho is enrolled and pays the fees for a se$ester, is for the entire se$ester only, not for the entire course. The la& does not re6uire a school to see a student through to the co$pletion of his course. )f the school closes or is closed #y proper authority at the end of a se$ester, the student has no cause of action for #reach of contract against the school. Thus did this Court rule in FAlcua, et al. vs. 5hilippine School of Kusiness Ad$inistration, 'ueon City Kranch, et al.,F .4. >o. !GBB, pro$ulgated on 2ay 7, 1988. I>4"%%2I>T )> C"%%II, >"T A> "K%)AT)"> "4 T3I %ATTI4 T" 4I2A)> "5I> T)%% T3I ST@I>T C"25%ITIS T3I C"@4SI. O ?e, therefore, hold that the lo&er court gravely a#used its discretion in co$pelling the C2CC to reopen and re(ad$it the stri*ing students for enroll$ent in the second se$ester of their courses. Since their contracts &ith the school &ere ter$inated at the end of the first se$ester of 198!, and as the school has already ceased to operate, they have no Fclear legal rightF to reenroll and the school has no legal o#ligation to reopen and read$it the$. >o provision in the Iducation Act of 1987, nor in the 2anual of 4egulations for 5rivate Schools can #e, or has #een, cited to support the novel vie& that a school is o#ligated to re$ain open until its students have co$pleted their courses therein. )ndeed, neither is there a la& or rule that o#ligates a student &ho has enrolled in a school, to re$ain there until he finishes his course. "n the contrary he $ay transfer at any ti$e to any school that is &illing to accept. II. CONSENS/ALIT: * ARTS. &(6+ AND &(&+8 SEE ALSO ART. 554 III. #/T/ALIT: * ART. &(64 Pag# $ ))
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
4)>"(A'@)>", J: @>)%ATI4A% ACT)"> T" )>C4IASI )>TI4IST 4ATIS, A E)"%AT)"> " A4T)C%I 1B08 " C)E)% C"I. O Kesides violating 5.. 11G, the unilateral action of the 5>K in increasing the interest rate on the private respondents loan, violated the $utuality of contracts ordained in Article 1B08 of the Civil Code: FA4T. 1B08. The contract $ust #ind #oth contracting parties its validity or co$pliance cannot #e left to the &ill of one of the$.F S@CCISS)EI )>C4IASI " )>TI4IST 4ATIS, A E)"%AT)"> " A4T)C%I 19G " C)E)% C"I. O 5>Ks successive increases of the interest rate on the private respondents loan, over the latters protest, &ere ar#itrary as they violated an epress provision of the Credit Agree$ent +Ih. 1- Section 9.01 that its ter$s F$ay #e a$ended only #y an instru$ent in &riting signed #y the party to #e #ound as #urdened #y such a$end$ent.F The increases i$posed #y 5>K also contravene Art. 19G of the Civil Code &hich provides that Fno interest shall #e due unless it has #een epressly stipulated in &riting.F 0ICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION, LAINTI))'AELLEE, 0S . JACINTA BALDO#AR, ET AL., DE)ENDANTS'AELLANTS. &G'R' No' L(.7)' Otob#r )< %,)7'5
3)A%". J: "K%)AT)">S A> C">T4ACTS %IASI EA%))TL A> @%)%%2I>T CA>>"T KI %IT T" INC%@S)EI ?)%% " %ISSII. O The continuance and fulfill$ent of the contract of lease cannot #e $ade to depend solely and eclusively upon the free and uncontrolled choice of the lessees #et&een continuing paying the rentals or not, co$pletely depriving the o&ner of all say in the $atter. or if this &ere allo&ed, so long as defendants elected to continue the lease #y continuing the pay$ent of the rentals, the o&ner &ould never #e a#le to discontinue it conversely, although the o&ner should desire the lease to continue, the lessees could effectively th&art his purpose if they should prefer to ter$inate the contract #y the si$ple epedient of stopping pay$ent of the rentals. This, of course, is prohi#ited #y article 17G of the Civil Code. I0. 0.
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
C">CI5C)">, C.J.: )f a contract should contain so$e stipulation in favor of a third person, he $ay de$and its fulfill$ent provided he co$$unicated his acceptance to the o#ligor #efore its revocation. A $ere incidental #enefit or interest of a person is not sufficient. The contracting parties $ust have clearly and deli#erately conferred a favor upon a third person. @A/))#AN %s. NATIONAL BAN@ &G'R' No' %7)0)< S#8t#9b#r .,< %,.%5
ST4IIT, J.: F)n applying this test to a stipulation pour autrui, it $atters not &hether the stipulation is in the nature of a gift or &hether there is an o#ligation o&ing fro$ the pro$ise to the third person. That no such o#ligation eists $ay in so$e degree assist in deter$ining &hether the parties intended to #enefit a third person, &hether they stipulated for hi$.F :O/NG %s. CA &G'R' No' 6,0%+ 2an3ar4 %1< %,+,5
5A4AS, J.: The re6uisites of a stipulation pour autrui or a stipulation in favor of a third person are the follo&ing: +1- there $ust #e a stipulation in favor of a third person. +7- the stipulation $ust #e a part, not the &hole of the contract. +B- the contracting parties $ust have clearly and deli#erately conferred a favor upon a third person, not a $ere incidental #enefit or interest. +=- the third person $ust have co$$unicated his acceptance to the o#ligor #efore its revocation. +- neither of the contracting parties #ears the legal representation or authoriation of the third party. D. STAGES O) CONTRACTS? >NEGOTIATION, ER)ECTION, CONS/##ATION1 ANG :/ %. CA &G'R' No' %*,%.0- "##9b#r .< %,,)5
E)T@, J.: An o#ligation is a /uridical necessity to give, to do or not to do +Art. 11G, Civil Code-. The o#ligation is constituted upon the concurrence of the essential ele$ents thereof, vi: +a- The vinculu$ /uris or /uridical tie &hich is the efficient cause esta#lished #y the various sources of Pag# $ )7
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
o#ligations +la&, contracts, 6uasi(contracts, delicts and 6uasi(delicts- +#- the o#/ect &hich is the prestation or conduct re6uired to #e o#served +to give, to do or not to do- and +c- the su#/ect( persons &ho, vie&ed fro$ the de$anda#ility of the o#ligation, are the active +o#ligee- and the passive +o#ligor- su#/ects. i.
KA@T)STA A>I%", J.: )t is true that under article 1B7= of the ne& Civil Code, the general rule regarding offer and acceptance is that, &hen the offerer gives to the offeree a certain period to accept, Fthe offer $ay #e &ithdra&n at any ti$e #efore acceptanceF ecept &hen the option is founded upon consideration, #ut this general rule $ust #e interpreted as $odified #y the provision of article 1=!9 a#ove referred to, &hich applies to Fa pro$ise to #uy and sellF specifically. As already stated, this rule re6uires that a pro$ise to sell to #e valid $ust #e supported #y a consideration distinct fro$ the price. AT@INS @ROLL AND CO., INC. %s. C/A 7IAN TE@ &G'R' No' L(,+6%< 2an3ar4 1%< %,0+5
KI><">, J.: urther$ore, an option is unilateral: a pro$ise to sell at the price fied &henever the offeree should decide to eercise his option &ithin the specified ti$e. After accepting the pro$ise and #efore he eercises his option, the holder of the option is not #ound to #uy. 3e is free either to #uy or not to later. )n this case, ho&ever, upon accepeting herein petitioners offer a #ilateral pro$ise to sell and to #uy ensued, and the respondent ipso facto assu$ed the o#ligations of a purchaser. 3e did not /ust get the right su#se6uently to #uy or not to #uy. )t &as not a $ere option then it &as #ilalteral contract of sale.
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
This vie& has the advantage of avoiding a conflict #et&een Articles 1B7= O on the general principles on contracts O and 1=!9 O on sales O of the Civil Code, in line &ith the cardinal rule of statutory construction that, in construing different provisions of one and the sa$e la& or code, such interpretation should #e favored as &ill reconcile or har$onie said provisions and avoid a conflict #et&een the sa$e. )ndeed, the presu$ption is that, in the process of drafting the Code, its author has $aintained a consistent philosophy or position. R/RAL BAN@ O) ARANA/E %s. RE#OLADO &G'R' No' L(7.*0% :ar/ %+< %,+05
A'@)>", J.: Courts operate not #ecause one person has #een defeated or overco$e #y another, #ut #ecause he has #een defeated or overco$e illegally. 2en $ay do foolish things, $a*e ridiculous contracts, use $isera#le /udg$ent, and lose $oney #y the$(indeed, all they have in the &orld #ut not for that alone can the la& intervene and restore. There $ust #e, in addition, a violation of la&, the co$$ission of &hat the la& *no&s as an actiona#le &rong #efore the courts are authoried to lay hold of the situation and re$edy it. #ONTILLA %s. CA &G'R' No' L()6,7+' :a4 ,< %,++5
>A4EASA, J.: The action is also dis$issi#le upon another legal ground. Assu$ing arguendo verita#ility of the oral pro$ise to sell #y 2ontilla, the pro$ise &as nevertheless not #inding upon her in vie& of the a#sence of any consideration therefor distinct fro$ the stipulated price. This is the principle laid do&n #y the second paragraph of Article 1=!9: FAn accepted unilateral pro$ise to .. sell a deter$inate thing for a price certain is #inding upon the pro$issor if the pro$ise is supported #y a consideration distinct fro$ the price.F NATINO %s. IAC G'R' No' 61061 :a4 .1< %,,%
AE)I, J4., J.: The second paragraph of Article 1=!9 of the Civil Code epressly provides: An accepted unilateral. pro$ise to #uy or to sell a deter$inate thing for a price certain is #inding upon the pro$issory if the pro$ise is supported #y a consideration distinct fro$ the price. :AO @A SIN TRADING %s. CA &G'R' No' L(01+.* 23n# %0< %,,.5 Pag# $ )+
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
AE)I, J4., J.: Since a corporation, such as the private respondent, can act only through its officers and agents, Fall acts &ithin the po&ers of said corporation $ay #e perfor$ed #y agents of its selection and, ecept so far as li$itations or restrictions $ay #e i$posed #y special charter, #y(la&, or statutory provisions, the sa$e general principles of la& &hich govern the relation of agency for a natural person govern the officer or agent of a corporation, of &hatever status or ran*, in respect to his po&er to act for the corporation and agents &hen once appointed, or $e$#ers acting in their stead, are su#/ect to the sa$e rules, lia#ilities and incapacities as are agents of individuals and private persons.F DIA#ANTE 0S. CA &G'R' No' L(0%+.) F#br3ar4 6< %,,.5
AE)I, J4., J.: The right of repurchase is not a right granted the vendor #y the vendee in a su#se6uent instru$ent, #ut is a right reserved #y the vendor in the sa$e instru$ent of sale as one of the stipulations of the contract. "nce the instru$ent of a#solute sale is eecuted, the vendor can no longer reserve the right to repurchase, and any right thereafter granted the vendor #y the vendee in a separate instru$ent cannot #e a right of repurchase #ut so$e other right li*e the option to #uy in the instant case. 1' EARNEST #ONE: >ART. &54-1 %s. OTION #ONE: >ART. &5291 II'
&. -. (. 5. +. .
ER)ECTION * ART. &(&+, &(&, AND &(&9>-ND ARAGRA718 SEE ALSO ART. +5 O) T7E CODE O) CO##ERCE ESSENTIAL RE/ISITES O) A 0ALID CONTRACT 37O ARE INCAACITATED TO GI0E CONSENT LAC@ O) CAACIT: >ART. &(-21 %s. 3ANT O) CAACIT:>ART. &56(1 %s. DIS/ALI)ICATION >ART. 9 O) T7E )A#IL: CODE1 T7EOR: O) GENERAL CAACITIES %s. T7EOR: O) SECIAL CAACITIES 0ICES O) CONSENT SI#/LATION O) CONTRACTS A. OBJECT * ART. &(25 B. CA/SE * ART. &(+6 C. CASES? LIG/E; %s. 7ON. CA &G'R' No' L(%%.)*- "##9b#r %+< %,065
4ILIS, J.K.%., J.: Pag# $ ),
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
To deter$ine the pre/udice to the &ido&, it $ust #e sho&n that the value of her share in the property donated cannot #e paid out of the hus#ands share of the co$$unity profits. The re6uisite data, ho&ever, are not availa#le to us and necessitate a re$and of the records to the court of origin that settled the estate of the late Salvador 5. %ope. ONG %s. ONG &G'R' No' L(76+++- Otob#r +< %,+05
4I%"EA, J.: The eecution of a deed purporting to convey o&nership of a realty is in itself pri$a facie evidence of the eistence of a valua#le consideration, the party alleging lac* of consideration has the #urden of proving such allegation. BAGNAS %s. CA &G'R' No' L(1+),+- A3g3st %*< %,+,5
>A4EASA, J.: ?ithout necessarily according all these assertions its full concurrence, #ut upon the consideration alone that the apparent gross, not to say enor$ous, disproportion #et&een the stipulated price +in each deed- of 5 l.00 plus unspecified and un6uantified services and the undisputa#ly valua#le real estate allegedly sold &orth at least 510,00.00 going only #y assess$ents for ta purposes &hich, it is &ell(*no&n, are notoriously lo& indicators of actual value plainly and un6uestiona#ly de$onstrates that they state a false and fictitious consideration, and no other true and la&ful cause having #een sho&n, the Court finds #oth said deeds, insofar as they purport to #e sales, not $erely voida#le, #ut void a# initio. E. )OR#S O) CONTRACTS * ARTS. &(+ TO &(+4 I. )OR 0ALIDIT: &. IN 3RITING A. DONATION * ART. 254 B. CO##ON CARRIERS LIABILIT: * ART. &255 C. AGENTS A/T7ORIT: * ART. &425 D. INTEREST ON LOAN * ART. &9+ E. ANTIC7RESIS * ART. -&(5 -. IN /BLIC INSTR/#ENTS A. DONATION * ART. 259 B. ARTNERS7I * ART. &22& AND &22( II. )OR EN)ORCEABILIT: Pag# $ 0*
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
4ILIS, J.: Ivery party to a contract has a clear interest that the instru$ent #odying its ter$s should confor$ to the actual and true agree$ent had #y and #et&een the contracting parties. 3ence, if #y accident or $ista*e, as epressly pleaded in the co$plaint, the docu$ent does not confor$ to or reflect the actual agree$ent, either party can as* for the refor$ation of the instru$ent as provided #y Articles 1B9, et se6. +Chapter =, Title 7, Koo* =- of the Civil Code of the 5hilippines, to forestall future litigations on the true i$port of the agree$ent. COSIO %s. ALILEO &G'R' No' L(%+)0.- :a4 1%< %,705
4IA%A, J.: )n refor$ing instru$ents, courts do not $a*e another contract for the parties +See Civil Code, Arts. 1B9(1BG9 and the 4eport of the Code Co$$ission, p. G-. They $erely in6uire into the intention of the parties and, having found it, refor$ the &ritten instru$ent +not the contract- in order that it $ay epress the real intention of the parties +See )d., Arts. 1BG and 1G07-. G. INTERRETATION O) CONTRACTS * ARTS. &(26 TO &(29 GSIS %s. CA &G'R' No' L(0.)6+ Otob#r 1*< %,+75
5A4AS, J.: )t is a #asic and funda$ental rule in the interpretation of contract that if the ter$s thereof are clear and leave no dou#t as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal $eaning of the stipulations shall control #ut &hen the &ords appear contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over, the for$er. )n order to /udge the intention of the parties, their conte$poraneous and su#se6uent acts shall #e principally considered. /NI0ERSIT: O) T7E 7ILIINES %s. Ga
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
&G'R' No' 6*+.7- Otob#r %.< %,+65
@T)I44I<, J4., J.: Act B99 &as intended for private persons, co$panies, fir$s, or corporations using the services of contractors &ho $ay e$ploy their o&n carpenters, $asons, and la#orers or hire su#( contractors. This is $ade even $ore evident #y the fact that 5residential ecree >o. ==7. The %a#or Code of the 5hilippines, Articles 10G to 109 and its 4ules and 4egulations, 4ule E))), Sections !(9, have superseded Act B99. The %a#or Code does not cover govern$ent e$ploy$ent. BA: 0IE3 7OTEL, INC., 0S. @ER AND CO., LTD &G'R' No' L(.+.16- A3g3st 1%< %,+.5
TII3A>RII, J.: Ad$ission is in the nature of evidence and its legal effects &ere already part of the records of the case and therefore could #e availed of #y any party even #y one su#se6uently i$pleaded. The a$end$ent of the co$plaint per se cannot set aside the legal effects of the re6uest for ad$ission since its $ateriality has not #een affected #y the a$end$ent. )f a fact is ad$itted to #e true at any stage of the proceedings, it is not stric*en out through the a$end$ent of the co$plaint. To allo& a party to alter the legal effects of the re6uest for ad$ission #y the $ere a$end$ent of a pleading &ould constitute a dangerous and undesira#le precedent. ANGELES %s. CALASAN; &G'R' No' L()..+1- :ar/ %+< %,+05
@T)I44I<, J4., J.: Article 1191 is eplicit. )n reciprocal o#ligations, either party the right to rescind the contract upon the failure of the other to perfor$ the o#ligation assu$ed thereunder. 2oreover, there is nothing in the la& that prohi#its the parties fro$ entering into an agree$ent that violation of the ter$s of the contract &ould cause its cancellation even &ithout court intervention LABASAN %s. LAC/ESTA &G'R' No' L(.0,1%- Otob#r 1*< %,6+5
2@"< 5A%2A, J.: Article 1G07 paragraph 1 of the >e& Civil Code epressly provides that in case of dou#t a contract purporting to #e a sale &ith a right to repurchase shall #e construed as an e6uita#le $ortgage &hen the price or consideration of the sale is unusually inade6uate. Pag# $ 0.
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
S: 0S. CA &G'R' No' L(1,+01- A3g3st %6< %,+15
2I%I>C)"(3I44I4A, J.: As provided for #y Article 777! of the Civil Code, ho&ever, %i6uidated da$ages, &hether intended as an inde$nity or a penalty, shall #e e6uita#ly reduced if they are ine6uitous or unconsciona#le. 7. DE)ECTI0E CONTRACTS I. RESCISSIBLE CONTRACTS &. ART. &(46 >RESCISSION1 0S. ART. &&9& >RESOL/TION1 -. ARTS. &(4&, &(4-, &694, &&49, &+-, &+(5, &+(9, &+5-, &++, &+6, &+2 AND &+9 II. 0OIDABLE CONTRACTS * ART. &(96 &. #ODES TO ETING/IS7 AN ACTION )OR ANN/L#ENT III. /NEN)ORCEABLE CONTRACTS * ART. &56( ORD/NA %s. )/ENTEBELLA &G'R' No' %67+)%- 23n# .,< .*%*5
EI%ASC", J4., J.: The Statute of rauds, in contet, provides that a contract for the sale of real property or of an interest therein shall #e unenforcea#le unless the sale or so$e note or $e$orandu$ thereof is in &riting and su#scri#ed #y the party or his agent. 3o&ever, &here the ver#al contract of sale has #een partially eecuted through the partial pay$ents $ade #y one party duly received #y the vendor, as in the present case, the contract is ta*en out of the scope of the Statute. I0. 0OID AND INEISTENT CONTRACTS * ART. &569 I. ESTOEL * ARTS. &5(& TO &5(9 I. @INDS O) ESTOELS &. ELE#ENTS II. LAC7ES 0S. RESCRITION LA/REL %s. CSC &G'R' No' 6%07.- Otob#r .+< %,,%5
AE)I, J4., J.:
Pag# $ 01
Obligations and Contrats! "otrin#s and Cas# "ig#sts
5er Article 1=B1 of the Civil Code, through estoppel an ad$ission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person $a*ing it, and cannot #e denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. NB %s. IAC &G'R' No' 776%0- S#8t#9b#r %+< %,,*5
4)"(A'@)>", J. The doctrine of estoppel is #ased upon the grounds of pu#lic policy, fair dealing, good faith and /ustice, and its purpose is to for#id one to spea* against its o&n act, representations, or co$$it$ents to the in/ury of one to &ho$ they &ere directed and &ho reasona#ly relied thereon. The doctrine of estoppel springs fro$ e6uita#le principles and the e6uities in the case. )t is designed to aid the la& in the ad$inistration of /ustice &here &ithout its aid in/ustice $ight result. )t has #een applied #y this Court &herever and &henever the special circu$stances of a case so de$ands. @ALALO %s. L/; &G'R' No' L(.66+.- 23l4 1%< %,6*5