O B L I G AT I O N S A N D C O N T R A C T S

Laguna State Polytechnic University, Class of 2014

SKIP TO CONTENT
ABOUT
OBLIGATIONS
CONTRACTS
NATURAL OBLIGATIONS
ESTOPPEL (N)
TRUSTS (N)
CONTACT US

TITLE I. OBLIGATIONS

Article 1181
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA

Sa conditional obligation, ang pagtatamo ng karapatan, pati na rin

ang pagtapos o kawalan ng mga natamo na, ay nakasalalay sa mga
pangyayari ng mga kaganapan na bumubuo ng kundisyon.
Case Digest by Ainna Fathi
Case: Emilio Natividad v. Basilia Gabino (36 PHIL. 663),
March 31, 1917
FACTS

PETITIONER: Emilio Natividad

RESPONDENT: Basilia Gabino
PONENTE: Torres, J.
On August 21, 1915, an order given by the judge of the Court

of First Instance arose from interpreting the true wishes of the

testator, Salvador Y Reyes that on accord to clause 6 of the
testament, ownership and dominion of subject property should
be awarded to Basilia Gabino, subject to the reservation made
in behalf od Lorenzo Salvador and Emilio Natividad. Because
of this, an amendment was ordered to clarify the confusion on
Clause 6 of the testament.
The original clause 6 was:
I bequeath to Doa Basilia Gabino the ownership and
dominion of the urban property, consisting of a house and lot
situated on Calle Lavezares of the said district of San Nicolas
and designated by No. 520, and in addition eleven meters by
two meters of the lot designated by No. 419, situated on Calle
Madrid. This portion shall be taken from that part of the lot
which is adjacent to the rear of said property No. 520. If the
said legatee should die, Lorenzo Salvador shall be obliged to
deliver this house, together with the lot on which it stands, to
my grandson Emilio Natividad, upon payment by the latter to
the former of the sum of four thousand pesos (P4,000),
Philippine currency.
This case was filed by Emilio Natividad, the administrator of
the estateof the decedent, Tiburcio Salvador Y. Reyes as an
appeal from the order upheld by the CFI.

ISSUE/S
LAWS

Whether the CFI erred in interpreting clause 6 of the

testament
Article 1181. In conditional obligations, the acquisition of
rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already
acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which
constitutes the condition. (1114)
Suspensive Condition/Condition Precedent: Also know as
condition antecedent a condition that rules an obligation as
non-existent should an event NOT take place.
The event is considered future and uncertain. If this event
does not happen, the parties will stand as if the conditional

obligation never existed;

Resolutory Condition/Condition Subsequent: A condition that
extinguishes rights and obligations already existing; The rights
and obligations are already existing but are under threat of
extinction upon the happening or fulfillment of the resolutory
condition.
A but, if condition:
e.g #1: Piece of land given with a resolutory cause that it be
used as a park, if a park is not constructed then entitles the
donor to revoke the obligation.
e.g #2: propter nuptias
e.g #3: reserva troncal

HOLDINGS

No. The CFI did not err with their ruling. The condition imposed
by the testator in the double legacy mentioned depends upon
the happening of the event constituting the condition, to wit,
the death of the legatee Basilia Gabino, a perfectly legal
condition according to article 1114 of the Civil code, as it is
not impossible of performance and is not contrary to law or
public morals, as provided in article 1116 of said code.
The moment the legatee Gabino dies the other legatee,
Lorenzo Salvador, is obliged to deliver the property to the heir
Emilio Natividad who, in his turn and in exchange, must pay
the legatee Salvador the sum of P4,000, thereby fulfilling the
double legacy contained in the said sixth clause of the will, the
first of these legacies being the voluntary reservation to
Basilia Gabino of the ownership of the said house, and the
second, the conditional legacy of P4,000 to Lorenzo Salvador.
If the provisions of article 675 of the Civil Code are to be
complied with, it cannot be understood that the testator
meant to bequeath to Basilia Gabino the mere usufruct of the
property, inasmuch as, by unmistakable language employed
in the said sixth clause, he bequeathed her the ownership or

dominion of the said property language which expresses

without the slightest doubt his wishes which should be
complied with literally, because it is constant rule or
jurisprudence that in matters of last wills and testaments the
testators will is the law.
Also, both conditions set forth by the testator are not contrary
to law or public morals.
The August 21 Ruling was affirmed, with costs against the
appellant.

Article 1182
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA

Kapag ang katuparan ng kondisyon ay nakasalalay sa kusang loob

ng may utang, ang conditional obligation ay wala ng bisa. Kung ito
ay depende sa pagkakataon o sa kagustuhan ng isang ikatlong tao,
ang obligasyon ay dapat magkabisa sa pagsunod sa mga probisyon
ng Code na ito.

Article 1183
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA

Ang mga imposibleng kondisyon, na labag sa magandang kaugalian

o patakarang pampubliko at mga ipinagbabawal ng batas ay dapat
ipawalang-bisa ang obligasyon na nakasalalay sa kanila. Kung ang
obligasyon ay maaaring hatiin, ang bahagi nito na hindi apektado ng
mga imposible o labag sa batas na kondisyon ay dapat na may-bisa.

Ang kondisyon na hindi gumawa ng isang imposibleng bagay ay

itinuturing na hindi napagkasunduan.
DISCUSSION BY BONG REYES
All conditions that are impossible and not true can annuls not only
the condition itself but the whole contract. Things that cannot be
done was considered not agreed upon.
Examples of impossible conditions are:
1. I will give you money as a loan if its snow in the Philippines.
2. I will give you the company if you drink water in the Pasig river
until it runs dry.
Examples of impossible conditions contrary to good morals and
customs.
1. I will give you parcel of land if you could kill Cathy in 24 hours.
2. I will give you parcel of land if you will leave Marian and live
instead with Antonette.

Article 1184
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA

Ang kondisyon na may nangyaring kaganapan sa isang tukoy na

oras ay dapat pagtatapos na ng obligasyon lalo na kapag natapos
na ang oras o kung ito siguradong hindi mangyayari.

Article 1185
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA

Ang kondisyon na ang ilang mga kaganapan ay hindi mangyayari sa

isang tukoy na oras ay dapat maging sanhi upang maging epektibo
ang obligasyon mula sa sandali na ang oras na nakasaad ay
lumipas, o kung ito ay naging malinaw na ang kaganapan ay hindi
maaaring mangyari.
Kung walang oras na nakasaad, ang kundisyon ay dapat itinuturing
na natupad sa naturang oras bilang maaaring/marahil ay
napagisipan, laging tatandaan ang katangian ng obligasyon.

Article 1186
JANUARY 6, 2015 / DIONE MENDOZA

Ang kundisyon ay dapat itinuturing na naisakatuparan na kapag ang

nagpautang ay kusang-loob na pumipigil sa katuparan nito.
Illustrative case by Allan Pailan
M.D. Taylor (Plaintiff-Appelant)

October 2, 1922

vs.
Uy Tieng Piao & Tan Liuan (Defendant-Appellant)
FACTS:

On December 12, 1918, the plaintiff contracted his services to Tan

Liuan & Co., as superintendent of an oil factory which the latter
establishing in this city. The period of the contract extended over
two years from the date mentioned and the salary drate salary rate
of P600 per month during 1st year and P700 per month during the
second year, with electric light and water for domestic consumption
and a residence to live or in leu thereof of 60 per month at the time.
At the time this agreement was made, the machinery for the factory
had not been acquired, though ten expellers had been ordered from
the U.S. as agreed, for any reason the machinery failed to arrived in
the city of Manila for the period of six months from the date given,
the contract may be canceled by the party of the second part.
The machinery stated in the contract did not arrive in the city of
manila within the six month after the making of the contract, and
other equipment necessary for the factory. June 28,1919, the
defendants informed the plaintiff that they had decided to rescind
the contract effective June 30th. The plaintiff instituted the action to
recover damages in the amount of P13,000.00 covering salary and
perquisite under the contract.
ISSUE:
Whether or not that the plaintiff-appellant may demand perquisites
under the rescinded contract.
HELD:

Yes, it has been concluded that the Court of First Instance

committed no error in rejecting the plaintiff claim in so far as
damages are sought for the period subsequent to the expiration of
the first six months, but in the assessment of damages due for six
months period, the trial judge evidently overlooked the item of P60
specified in the plaintiff fourth assignment of error, which represent
commutation of house rental for the month of June 1919. this
amount the plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover, in addition to the
P300 awarded in the lower court.
The judgment of CFI is modified, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff
the sum of P360 instead of P300 as allowed by the lower court.

Article 1226
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Sa pananagutan mayroon nakasaad na parusa, ang kaparusahan ay

papalit sa kabayaran ng damyos at ang kabayaran ng mga tubo
sakaling ng hindi pag tupad noon at kung walang napagkasunduan.
Ganun paman, mga damyos ay dapat bayaran ng may
pagkakautang na ayaw magbayad ng tubo o mapatunayan ng hindi
tuwiran pag tupad ng kanyang pananagutan.
CASE. DIONE
THE MANILA RACING CLUB, INC., plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
THE MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, ET AL., defendants-appellees

FACTS: This action is filed by the plaintiff against the Manila Jockey
Club and its partners for the recovery from them of the forfeited
amount of P100,000 and for the payment of P50,000 as damages.
The appealed judgment absolves the defendants.
ISSUES: Does forfeiture of what has been already paid, by reason
of the failure to pay other installments constitute penalty?
HELD: Yes.This clause regarding the forfeiture of what has been
partially paid is valid. It is in the nature of a penal clause which may
be legally established by the parties (article 1152 and 1255 of the
Civil Code). In its double purpose of insuring compliance with the
contract and of otherwise measuring beforehand the damages which
may result from non-compliance, it is not contrary to law, morals or
public order because it was voluntarily and knowingly agreed upon
by the parties.

Article 1227
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang maypagkakautang ay hindi pinapawalan ng pananagutan upang

isakatuparan ang kanyang panangutan bayaran ang tubo maliban
kung ang nasabing karapatan ay nakatalaga para sa kanya. Ang
nagpapautang ay hindi rin maaring obligahin na bayaran ang
panagutan at ang tubo na magkasabay maliban kung ang ganun
karapatan ay maliwanag na ibinigay sa kanya. Subalit kung ang
nagpapautang ay nagpasiya na singilin ang pagbibigay ng
kabayaran, kung ang pagbabayad maging imposible ng walang
kasalanan, ang tubo ay maaring ipatupad.

DISCUSSION BY BONG REYES

The general rule is that debtor cannot exempt himself in paying the
penalty only and not giving the principal. The exemption is when the
debtor was granted the right to pay the penalty and not the
principal amount.
ILLUSTRATION:
When A contracted with C for the construction of a building in which
they are agreed to finish it in two months. Then, C did not manage
the construction instead his son took place in this. A was dismayed
and sued C for the penalty of not finishing the project on time and
not using exact materials he told C. The owner can confiscate the
amount and penalty to the contractor who violate the contract.

Article 1228
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang patunay ng tunay na mga damyos na sinapit ng maypautang ay

hindi kailangan upang ang tubo ay singiin.
Leon J. Lambert v T.J Fox G.R No. L-7991 Jan 29, 1914 (26
Phil. 588)
Cause of Action : To recover a penalty for breach of contract
Issues: whether or not there was violation to their agreement and
their agreement was valid?
Facts:

1. John Edgar & company was engaged in retail business buying and
selling books & stationary, it suffered financial trouble to save the
collapsed of the said company creditors agreed to convert their
credit into share of stock equivalent to amount they lent to the
company.Lambert and Foc became the major stockholders of the
company. After the incorporation of the firm was completed Lambert
and Fox agreed that neither or both of them sell or transfer their
holding in the company until after one year which they believed
after a year the company would become financially stable. They
agreed that 1,000 penalty would be paid in case any of them
violated the said agreement. After 9 months Fox believing that John
Edgar & Company was already stable sold his shared to their rival
company McMullough. The sale was protested by Lambert and
reminded Fox on their prior agreement. After Fox sold his shares to
Mc Mullough Lambert sued him with CFI, however the trial court
decided inf favor of Fox on the reason that company was already
stable and that Fox fulfilled his obligation and taht their agreement
should be good and continue until the company become financially
sound, Lambert appealed
Supreme Court

Ruling:

1. It held that the trial court erred in its construction of the contract.
2.the intention of the parties to a contract must be determined, the
contract itself, which it presumed that what they said or speak in
clear language is what they meant.

3. Where language used by parties is plain and clear, construction

and interpretation are unnecessary, the court do not interpret but
implement the law.
4. Fox should pay Lambert their agreed penalty in the amount of 1,
000.00

Article 1229
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang hukom ay makatuwiran babaan ang tubo kapag ang kabuuhan

ng obigasyon ay bahagya o hindi natupad ng may pagkakautang.
Ganun din kung hindi pa nakapagbayad, ang tubo ay maaring
babaan ng hukuman kung ito at hindi makatarungan at patas.
Illustrative case by Allan Pailan
The Bacharach Motor Co. Inc. vs. Faustino Espiritu, Rosario Espiritu
Nov. 6, 1928
FACTS:
a.) July 28, 1925-The defendant (Faustino Espiritu)purchased plaintiff
corp. a two-ton white truck for P11,983.50, paying P1,000.00 down
to apply on account of this price and obligating himself to pay the
remaining P10,983.50 within the period agreed upon.

b.) The defendants mortgaged the purchased trucks and three

others which are numbered 77197 and 92744 respectively to secure
the payments.
c.) The defendant failed to pay P10,477.82 of the price secured bu
mortgage.
d.) In case 28498 dated Feb. 18, 1925-defendant bought a one-ton
white truck of the plaintiff corporation for the sum of P7,136.50 and
the P500 cash deducted and 12 percent annual interest on the
unpaid principal, obligated himself to make payment within the
periods agreed upon and mortgage truck 77197 and 92744
respectively in purchased of the other truck.
e.)The defendant failed to pay P4,208.28 if the sum.
f.) In both sales, it was agreed that 12 percent to be paid upon
portion of the unpaid at execution of contracts, if failed to nonpayment in its maturity, 25 percent thereon as penalty.
g.) The defendant signed a promissory note solidarily with his
brother Rosario Espiritu for several sums secured by the two
mortgages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not that the plaintiff has the right to impose higher
interest as penalty twice the fixed rate by law.

HELD:
No, Article 1152 of the civil code permits the agreement upon a
penalty apart from the interest.Should there be such agreement,
penalty, does not include the interest; and which may be demanded
separately (as was held in case of Lopez vs. Hernaez-32 phil 631),
but considering that the obligation was partly performed and
making use of the power given to the court by article 1154 of the
civil code, the penalty is reduced to 10 percent of the unpaid debt.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Article 1230
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang kawalan bisa ng tubo sa kasunduan ay hindi kasama ang tubo

sa pangunahing pananagutan. Ang kawalan bisa ng pangunahing
panangutan ay kalakip ang kawalan pananagutan sa tubo

Article 1223
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang pagkakabahagi at hindi pagkakabahagi ng mga bagay na siyang

dahilan ng pananagutan/obligasyon kung saan iisa lamang ang may
pagkakautang at iisa din lamang ang nagpapautang ay hindi
magpapabago sa mga susug ng chapter 2 ng titulong ito.

1. Ang pagkakabahagi ay ang kakayahan na bayaran o isagawa ng

kabahagya lamang ng bagay.
Halimbawa: Ang pangako na mag bigay 50 pirasong TV sa tiyak na
gawang pangalan o tatak.
2. Ang hindi pagkakabahagi ay ang kawalang kakayahan bayaran o
isagawa bayaran ng bahabahagi lamang.
Halimbawa: Ang pangako na mag bigay ng kotse anu man tiyak na
gawang pangalan o tatak.

Article 1224
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang magkakasamang hindi mapaghahati-hati panagutan ay mag

reresulta ng pagbabayad ng mga damyos mula sa oras na hindi
tumupad ang maypagkakautang sa itinakdang usapan. Ang may
utang na handa na tumupad sa kanilang pangako, ay hindi na mag
aambag sa kabayaran lampas sa bahagi na halaga nakabahagi ng
kanilang pananagutan.
ILLUSTRATION by Allan Pailan
In Joint Obligation:

A & B contracted to deliver television LED monitor in the amount of

P50,000 to C
A is ready to pay P25,000 while B failed to produce P25,000. A is not
liable to pay for C the obligation of B.
In Solidary Obligation: (using the same case as above)
A is liable to pay the entire P50,000 or reciprocally to C even B failed
to give his P25,000, B is liable to pay A the said amount.
JOINT OBLIGATION the entire obligation is be paid by debtors
proportionately.
SOLIDARY OBLIGATION- each on of the debtors is obliged to pay the
entire obligation, each one of the creditors has the right to demand
from any debtors the payment of the entire obligation.

Article 1225
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Para sa gamit ng naunang talata, obligasyon magbigay ng tiyak na

bagay at sa bagay na hindi maaari ang paunang pagsasakatuparan
ay ipinagpapalagay na hindi maari pagpirapirasuhin. Kong ang
pananagutan ay may inilaan bilang ng araw ng paggawa, ang
pagsasagawa ng gawain ayon sa maliliit na bahagiat mga
kahalintulad na bagay na maaringn natural na isagawa ng pauntiunti ay divisible.Ganun paman baga mat ang bagay o servisyo ay
maaari physically pueding paghati-hatiin, ang ogligasyon is hindi

maari pag pirapirasuhin kong yaon ang nakatadhana sa batas at

pakay ng mga nagkasundo. Ang obligasyon huwag gawin,
mapaghihiwalay man o hindi mapaghihiwalay ay malalaman sa
katangian ng pagbabayad sa bawat tanging pagkakataon.
(Ang kaso naka saad ay Soriano v Ubat 1 scra 366). JNR
Case No, G.R No L-11633 Jan 31, 1961
Cause of Action: Collection for sum of money evidence by
promissory notes
Issues: whether or not the obligation assumed from Eduardo Ubat
was divisible?
Facts:
1. Eduardo Ubat obtained a a loan of 400.00 secured by
mortgage land covered by OCT 561 after paying his
3rd installment payment he died. Francisco his son inherited the
mortgage land and Sept 1946 Francisco Ubat borrowed money
amounting to 400.00 from PNB where is father got a loan, he
also executed a chattel mortgage on the standing crops of his
land cover by OCT no. 3231 Francisco also died in Sept 1954
with an unpaid balance of 82.00. Later his children instituted a
summary proceeding of his estate wherein the PNB also files its
claims, but the court dismissed PNB claims in that summary
proceeding.

2. July 1955 Jose Soriano a creditor of Francisco files an intestate

proceeding with the CFI Davao, wherein 2 parcel of land were
covered with OCT No. 561 and OCT No. 3231. PNB again filed 2
cliams First, for the 82.00 unpaid loan and the Second, was for
310.37 the outstanding loan of late Eduardo Ubat.
Consequently, the court allowed the first claim on the second
claim only 55.23 was allowed. The appellant Soriano construed
that the obligation assumed by deceased Eduardo was divisible
because its payment was stipulated to be in 10 equal yearly
installment and when the 4th installment become due and
payable, the prescription period of ten years commenced to
run nd only the 10thinstallment of 59.61 fell due in Oct 1945
was recoverable when the present claims was filed in Sept
1955.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
1. The court orders to pay PNB in the amount of 98.38 with
interest at daily rate of 0.0133 from sept 19, 1955 and for
second claim the sum of 191.15 with interest of 8 & per annum
from Sept 18, 1955. And that the 100.00 attorneys pay was
reasonable.
2. The court sustain PNB contention that suspensive effect of the
moratorium law on unpaid account namely, the cliam for the
6th installment which fell within the ten years prescriptive
period. On the 4th and tht 5th installment in the amount of
119.22 are no longer collectible as they prescribed already.
3. The prescription period start at the time when the action is
actually filed not from the time parties wishes to file an action.

4. Parties could not have intended a divisible obligation because

there was no fixed date was agreed upon as to the payment of
each or every installment. It was clear in the promissory notes,
that the installment were to be settle at the end of every year
from year 1 to year 10. GThe statute of limitation consequently
begin to run as to each and every unpaid installment from the
date that the bank can sue their debt.
5. In absence of the special provison, the prescription for all inds
of action be counted from the day the action maybe actually
brought to the attention of the court.

Article 1207
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang pagsangayon ng dalawa o mahigit pang nagpapautang o sa

dalawa at mahigit pang mga mangungutang sa iisa at katulad na
pananagutan hindi ibig sabihin na bawat isa sa mga nagpapautang
maykarapatan maningil o na ang bawat isa sa mga may utang ay
akuin ang buong kanbayaran. Mayroon lamang pinagsamasamang
pananagutan kong ang obligasyon ay nagsasaad nito.
Halimabawa dito ay ang kaso ng mga Roa.
RICARDO ROA V PH CREDIT CORPORATION & COURT OF
APPEALS (JNR)
CASE NO. G.R No. 106037 June 15, 1993
CAUSE OF ACTION: Certiorari

ISSUES: Whether or not the Second Petition applies the Res

Judicata Rule
FACTS:
1. In July 1982 PH credit Corp files a complaint with Replevin
against Cagayan De Oro Management Corp (CMC) in the RTC
Misamis Oriental, to recover several tools, equipments and
furnitures subject of a chattel mortgage executed by CMC in
favor of PH Credit to secure loans amounting to 484,351.14.
CMC filed a counterclaim, and prayed that it be discharge from
paying 3 promissory notes which it allegedly executed after is
was misled by misrepresentation of the PH Credit. Without
awaiting the final desposition of the repliven, PH credit
instituted a deficiency judgment against CMC with the RTC
Manila, alleging that, all real estate mortgage by CMC had
been foreclosed but a balance of 2,810,734.30 inclusive of
interest and penalties had been left outstanding on the
3rd promissory note executed.
2. RTC Misamis dismissed the case for failure to prosecute the
case Civil Case No. 8651 and ordered the reception of evidence
on the counter claims of CMC. Aug 1988 PH credit filed a third
case with the RTC Manila and impleaded Emeterio Roa Jr and
Ricardo Roa in place of CMC which had became insolvent and
filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, however, the C.A
dismissed the appeal, on reason that there was identity of
rights asserted and relief sought in both replevin and
deficiency judgment sought, and in Feb 1989 it annulled RTC
misamis ruling on Sept 13, 1988 and prohibited RTC Misamis
from proceeding with the counter claims and to dismiss the

CMC counter claim for failure to prosecute after 5 years from

dismissal of the complaint, and the counter claim was
permissive and had not paid the filing fees.
3. Emeterio Roa Jr & Ricardo filed a motion to dismiss case
against them on the ground of Res Judicata / Litis Pendencia,
and the case No. 88-45895 were suspended pending the
resolution of case No. 15845. The RTC Manila denied motion
filed by Roa which they subsequently went to Court of Appeals
contesting the RTC Manila ruling. The C.A denied the Roa
petition and said neither the dismissal of the deficiency
judgment nor the dismissal of replevin and the counter claims,
bars the prosecution of the second deficiency suit.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
1. There was no identity of subject matter, cause of action and
relief between the civil case of replevin and deficiency
judgment.
2. Dismissal of C.A case no. 19224 was not a judgment on the
merit and cannot be considered as conclusive adjudication of
the controversy. The dismissal was predicated on 2 grounds ;
(a) the pending case 8651;(b) and the prematurity of cause of
action for the foreclosure sale by PH credit which could not
proceed until it could recover possession of the properties
chattel s from CMC.
3. A judgment in order to work as res Judicata must be on the
merit ( Molder vs Meller, 104 Phil 731). A judgment dismissing
an action because of the pendency of another suit cannot
operate as Res Judicata, which requires that;a) there must be
an earlier final judgment; b). the court which rendered decision

must have jurisdiction of the matter and the parties; c). the
judgment was based on the merit of the case; d). there is
between the first and second suit identity of parties involved,
subject matter, cause of action and relief sought( Francisco vs
Blas 91 Phil 1/; Diana vs Batangas Transport co. 93 Phil 391
and Magdangal Vs City of Olongapo 179 SCRA 507).
ARTICLE

Article 1208
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Kung mula sa batas o natural o kataga ng obligasyon na tiniran sa

nakaraang artikulo ang ka baliktaran ay hindi hayag ang pautang ay
ipinagpapalagay na hati-hati sa maraming kabahagi kung ilang ang
nagpapautang o mangungutang, ang utang ay liwalay sa isat isa at
napapaloob sa patakaran panghukuman ukol sa ibat ibang usapin.
From Dennis to jnr

Article 1209
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Kung ang paghahati ay hindi imposible , ang karapatan ng mga may

pautang ay apektado lamang sa kanilang sama-samang mga gawa
at ang utang at paniningil ay maipatutupad lamang sa pagitan ng
usapang legal laban sa lahat ng may pagkakautang, kung isa sa
mga may utang ay maghikahos, ang ibang may utang ay hindi mag
aabono ng kanyang kabahagi.

Ang artikulong ito ay tugma para sa pinagsamang hindi

mapaghihiwalay na pananagutan, dahil ang pagbubuklod ay hindi
itinalaga at ang pagbabayad o bagay ay hindi maaring pagbukorin.
Ang pinagsamang hindi mapaghihiwalay na pananagutan, para sa
may mga utang ang kanilang pagbabayad ay dapat na may
pahintulot ng ibang may pagkakautang. Para sa mga nagpapautang
dapat mayroon ng sama-samang pagkilos na may pagkiling sa
karapatan ng may pautang.
Illustration(by Allan Pailan);
A,B,C,D are solidary creditors, in which E is a debtor, if one of the
creditors made an action to demand from E to fulfill Es obligation,
then E cannot made payment to only one of the creditors. Payment
of E must be made to all.

Article 1210
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang hindi mapaghahati-hati na pananagutan ay hindi nagbibigay

daan sa pinagbuklod, hindi ibig sabihin na ang pinagsamasama ay
mapaghahatihati.
Pagpuna:
Ang hindi pagkakahatihati ay mayroon tatlong(3) uri (1) legal na
aspikto (2) convensyonal (3) pinagbuklod na obligasyon.

Ang hindi mapaghihiwalay na pananagutan ay pagbabayad o bagay

na hindi magagawa maliban baguhin ang kahalagahan o usapan.
Discussion by Ainna Fathi:
An obligation to deliver a live dog is indivisible. If the obligation be
made divisible, the dog will have to be delivered in pieces. In this
case, the essence of the object is destroyed.

Article 1211
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Pinagbuklod maaring manatili bagamat ang mga may pautang at

mga mangungutang ay hindi binibigkis ng kapariho paraan at
kahalintulad na panahon at kalagayan.

Article 1212
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Bawat isa sa mga pinagbuklod na may mga pautang ay maaaring

gumawa ng may pakinabang sa iba, ngunit hindi lahat na maaaring
makasama sa iba nilang kasama.
Pagpuna:
Ang pinagsamasamang nagpapautang ay consipto na kaparihong
antas ng pananagutan at pakinabang
DISCUSSION BY BONG REYES
Beneficial Acts of Solidary Creditors

All creditors may perform acts that will benefit each other. They may
help each other to have more gains and built up their relationship in
good standing.
Prejudicial Acts of Solidary Creditors
If one or more of the member performs acts that will have bad
effects, lost of profit or may harm the good standing he will be liable
to his co-creditors.

Article 1213
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Sa mga pinagsamasamang mga nagpapautang, hindi nila maaaring

ibigay o ipasa sa iba ang kanyang mga karapatan ng walang
pahintulot ang iba pang nagpapautang o mamumuhonan. At kong
walang pahintulot ang isa sa may ari ng pinagsama samang
puhunan ang pagbibigay sa iba ng kanyang mga karapatan ay
walang bisa.
Paala-ala wala kaso naka saad ang artikulong ito

Article 1214
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang may pagkakautang ay maaring magbayad sa isa sa pinagsamasamang nagpapautang, ngunit kung may paniningil sa hukuman o
sa labas ng hukuman ng isa sa kanila, ang pagbabayad ay dapat
doon sa sumingil.

Pagpuna:
Ang may utang ay maaring magbayad sa sino man sa
magkakasamang nagpapautang, at ang pagbabayad kung
tatanggapin sino man sa kanilang magkakasamang may pautang ay
mag aalis ng pananagutan.
Illustration (by Allan Pailan):
A,B,C,D are the solidary creditors representing the credit union in
which E is a debtor. if one of them(creditors) or C made a demand
on E in order to fulfilled the latter obligation, E can only made
payment to C and that payment is sufficient to effect the
extinguishment of obligation of E.

Article 1215
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Paghalili, pagpapalitan, pagbubuklod o pagpapatawad ng utang

ginawa ng sinu man sa sama-samang nagpapautang sa sino man sa
magkakasamang may utang, ay mag papaalis ng pananagutan ng
hindi apikto sa susog ng Artikulong 1219.
Ang may pautang na may ginawa alin man sa katulad na gawain,
ganun din doon sa naningil ng pautang ay dapat managot sa iba
para sa kabahagi ng pananagutan na naayon sa kanya-kanyang
kabahagi.
Pagpuna:

Pahalili- walang paghahalili kung ang obligasyon ay binago.

Pagpapalitan- ay nagaganap kung ang dalawang tao ay may utang
sa isat isa, kapwa may utang at nagpautang.
Pagsasaisa- kung ang katauha ng may pautang at ang may utang ay
iisang tao lamang.
Pagpapatawad- ang pagpapatawad ay isang kusang loob at
kabutihan ng kalooban.
Discussion by Ainna Fathi:
When any of these are made by the solitary creditors or with any of
the solitary debtors, the obligation will extinguished without
prejudice to the provisions of Article 1219:
(1) Novation when obligations are modified by:
changing their object or principal conditions;
substituting the person of the debtor;
subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor
(2) Compensation when two persons, in their own right, become
creditors and debtors of each other (e.g A owes B Php 2,000, B
borrowed Php 2,000 from A)
(3) Confusion Or Merger of Rights when the characters of the
creditor and debtor are merged in the same person (e.g Company A
needs to provide Company B with janitorial services, Company A
merged with Company B and formed Company C)

(4) Remission Or Condonation the gratuitous abandonment by the

creditor of his right. It is essentially gratuitous and the acceptance
by the obligor is necessary (e.g X owes Z Php 10,000. Z tells X to
forget about the Php 10,000 he owes)

Article 1216
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang nagpapautang ay maaring maghabol labang sa kahit sino sa

mga magkakasamang may pautang. Ang paniningil ng isa sa kanila
o sa iba o sa lahat ng sabay-sabay. Ang pag singil ng sino man sa
kanila ay hindi hadlang upang singiin ang sino man sa kanila
habang ang utang kabuuhan ng utang ay hindi pa nasisingil.
CASE. DIONE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CONCEPCION MINING COMPANY, INC., ET AL., defendantsappellants.
FACTS: The present action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover
from the defendants the face of a promissory note.
ISSUES: Can the defendants pray, as a special defense, that the
estate of said deceased Vicente L. Legarda be included as partydefendant.
HELD: No. The court in its decision ruled that the inclusion of said
defendant is unnecessary and immaterial, in accordance with the
provisions of Article 1216 of the Deny Civil Code and section 17 (g)
of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

ART. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary
debtors or some of them simultaneously. The demand made against
one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may
subsequently be directed against the others so long as the debt has
not been fully collected.
The case was filed only against the defendants and the judgment
cannot be executed against the other co-debtors who were not
made parties in the complaint.

Article 1217
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang bayad ginawa ng isa sa magkakasamang mangungutang

magaalis na ng obligasyon. Kung dalawa o mahigit pang
kamangungutang ang nag alok ng bayad, ang nagpapautang ang
pipile kung alin alok ang kanyang tatanggapin.
Sino man ang nagbayad ay maaring maningil sa kanyang kapwa
mangungutang ayon sa kani-kanyang parti kasama na iyong tubo na
nabayaran na. Kung ang pagbabayad ay ginawa bago dumating ang
nakatakdang pagbabayad, walang tubo para sa nasasakop na
panahon ang dapat singilin.
Kapag isa sa magkakasamang mangungutang ang hindi
makapagbayad dahil sa kanyang kadukhaan, ang kanyang kaparting
babayaran ay sasagutin na ng kanyang kasamang mangungutang
ayon sa kanilang kabahagi ng pananagutan

Mga halimbawang kaso:

Joseph v Bautista 170 SCRA 540 / BPI v McCoy 52 Phil. 831
CASE DIGEST BY BONG REYES
Case: BPI v. MAY MCCOY (G. R. No. L-30111)

FACTS

On June 19, 1919, Mc Coy, deceased, and the present six

appellants, with three others, were interested in a domestic
corporation known as Cooperative Coconut Products Co., Inc., and
became liable to BPI for money advanced by the bank to the said
corporation. When the company did not prosper, the six
appellants addressed to the bank a demand letter.

ISSUE/S

Whether or not the letter must be accepted to be considered

valid?

LAWS

Article 1217

HOLDING
S

The letter of August 21, 1922, from the President of the bank have
sufficient notification of acceptance, when the bank acted to that
offer, the appellants and Mc Coy became obligated according to
the terms of the letter. The word acceptable was evidently used
as accepted, the final paragraph suggests that the property
should be awarded to the bank, signatory parties should protect
themselves in bidding. The opinion of two banks acceptance
should be in precise form indicated, which could not have been
considered material to the writers of the letter. The judgement of
the trial court against the said six defendants, requiring them to
pay to their former codefendant, but now plaintiff, the sum of P
1,714.28 and other proportional part and legal interest was
affirmed.

Article 1218
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang pagbabayad ng kasamahang mangungutang ay walang

karapatan maningil sa kanyang pawang magnungutang kung ang
nasabing pagbabayad ay isinagawa pagkatapos ang obigasyon
magbayad ay mapaso na o naging iligal na.
Pagpuna:
Ang artikulong ito ay angkop doon sa:
1. Utang na paso na ayon sa panahon itinakda ng batas.
2. Ang obligasyon o pagbabayad ay bawal na sa batas bago pa
mabayaran ang utang/obligasyon
ang sino man nagbayad ay hindi na sasaulian / babayaran pa.

Article 1219
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang pagpapatawad na ginawa ng isang nagpapautang sa kabahagi

ng isang may pagkakautang, di nangangahulugan na wala na siyang
pananagutan sa kapwa o iba kamangngutang nya, kong sakali ang
kabouhan ng utang ay binayaran nang sino man sa kanila bago
magkabisa ang pagpapatawad.
Paala-ala wala kaso nakasaad sa artikulong ito.

Article 1220
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang pagpapatawad sa buong pagkakautang ay nakuha sa

pamamagitan ng isa sa magkakasamang mangungutang wala
siyang karapatan na manghingi mula sa kapwa niyang
mangungutang.
Pagpuna:
Ang pagpapatawad ay isang kabutihan loob o awa at walang anu
man ibinayad.
Sa kabahagi na pagpapatawad, sino man ang mag bayad doon sa
parti na hindi pinatawad o ipinagpaubaya, ang sino man nagbayad
ay maaring niyang singilin ang iba ayon sa kanikanyang kabahagi
ng utang.
Discussion by Ainna Fathi:
Illustration:
A, B and C are solidary debtors to D. They owed D Php 20,000 that B
offered to pay. D, being a kind and impulsive person, remitted the
amount to B. The obligation is extinguished and B is not entitled to
reimbursement from A and C as B did not spend anything for the
remission granted by D as it is a gratuitous one.

Article 1221
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Kung ang bagay ay nawala na o kung ang pagbabayad ay imposible

na walang pagkakamali ang magkakasamang mangungutang, ang
pagbabayad ay mawawala na.
Kung mayroon kasalanan ang sino man sa kanila ang lahat ay
mananagot sa mga nagpapautang para doon sa prisyo at kabayaran
ng damyos at tubo, na walang sagabal na maghabol laban sa
napatunayan o nagpabayang kasamang mangungutang.
Kung sa pamamagitan ng kalikasan / hindi inanasahan pangyayari,
ang bagay ay nawala o ang pagbabayad naging imposible na
pagkatapos ng isa sa magkakasasamang pangungutang ay na
antala sa pamamagitan ng panghukuman o labas sa hukuman
paniningil , ang mga susug ng artikulong 1147 ang masusunod.

Article 1222
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ang magkakasamang mangunugtang, sa isang pagkilos laban sa

maypautang ay maaring gumamit ng mga depinsa na magmumula
sa natural na obligasyon at mula sa mga pang pesonal niyang
depinsa at sa kanyang kabahagi na utang.
At doon naman sa mga nauukol sa ibang may utang, maari rin
syang maging kasama ngunit doon lamang sa bahagi na sya ang
may responsibilidad.
Case Digest by Bong Reyes:
BRAGANZA VS. VILLA ABRILLE

FACTS:
Miss Braganza had a two sons because of insufficient funds to
support her children she owed P10,000.00 to Villa Abrielle. She
signed a promissory note binding herself and her two sons as
solidary debtors. Two years after the war Villa Abrielle sued her for
not paying her debt.
ISSUE:
Whether or not minority of co-debtors can release them in their
obligation?
HELD:
No, minority of children cannot release the mother in their
responsibilities, if they used this as a defense, minors can only plead
it and one the first place Braganza did not tell Villa Abrielle that her
children are minors that if he only knew it at first he will not lend
them the money.

Article 1193
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Obligasyon kung saan ang kanyang katuparan ay itinakda ay

maaring hingin lamang sa tiyak araw ay dumating na.
Obligasyon na mayroon hinihintay na panahon ay maybisa kaagad,
ngunit mawawala kapag dumating na ang tiyak na araw na yon. Ang

tiyak na araw ay nauunawaan na iyon ay tiyak na darating bagamat

hindi segurad kung kailan.. Kung ang kawalan ng katiyakan maging
ang yaong raw ay darating o hindi, ang obligasyon ay mayroon
pasubali, at iyon ay babatasan ng mga patakaran ng naunang
bahagi.
Case Digest by Ainna Fathi
Case: Ernest Berg v. Magdalena Estate, Inc. (92 PHIL. 110),
October 17, 1952
FACTS

PETITIONER: Ernest Berg

RESPONDENT: Magdalena Estate
PONENTE: Bautista Angelo, J.
Ever since September 22, 1943 plaintiff, Berg and defendants
under Magdalena Estate, Inc. were co-owners of the Property,
Crystal Arcade. One third of it belonged to the plaintiffpetitioner and two thirds, to the defendant-respondent. These
parties executed a deed of sale that should either of them sell
his share, the other party will have an irrevocable option to
purchase it at the sellers at the sellers price. The two,
eventually had a disagreement on what really happened with
regard to the deal.
On January. 1946, the petitioner offered his share for Php
200,000 and was accepted by the defendant, including the
stipulation that Berg was giving the defendant a period of time
which, including the extensions granted, would expire on May
31, 1947.
The defendant claimed that, in spite of the acceptance of the
offer, plaintiff refused to accept the payment of the price and
that because of this, they suffered damages in the amount of
Php 100,000 and asked for specific performance. The plaintiff
argued that this transaction, referred to by the defendant, is

not supported by any note or memorandum subscribed by the

parties and that this transaction falls under the statue of
frauds and cannot be the basis of the defendants special
defense.
In an application to sell or dispose their properties, both
parties filed for separate applications regarding the subject
property. In the defendants application, it desired a license in
order to use a portion of the P400,000 requested as a loan
from the National City Bank of New York, Manila, or from any
other bank in Manila, together with funds to be collected from
old and new sales of his real estate properties, for the
purchase of the one-third (1/3) of the Crystal Arcade property
in the Escolta, Manila, belonging to Mr. Ernest Berg.
The lower court found that there was no agreement reached
between the parties regarding the purchase and sale of the
property in question, it granted the case in favor of the
petitioner.

ISSUE/S
LAWS

Whether the term of payment stipulated in the defendants

application for license to sell/purchase, until they have
obtained Php 400,000 from the National City Bank of New
York, or after it has obtained funds from other sources,is in
line with the Civil Code
Article 1193. Obligations for whose fulfillment a day certain
has been fixed, shall be demandable only when that day
comes.
Obligations with a resolutory period take effect at once, but
terminate upon arrival of the day certain.
A day certain is understood to be that which must necessarily
come, although it may not be known when.
If the uncertainty consists in whether the day will come or not,
the obligation is conditional, and it shall be regulated by the
rules of

the preceding Section. (1125a)

Yes. The term of payment stipulated in the defendants

application for license to sell/purchase, until they have
obtained Php 400,000 from the National City Bank of New
York, or after it has obtained funds from other sources,is in
line with the Civil Code (Art. 1125).
A day certain is understood to be that which must necessarily
arrive, even though it is unknown when. In order that an
obligation may be with a term, it is, therefore, necessary that
it should arrive, sooner or later; otherwise, if its arrival is
uncertain, the obligation is conditional. To constitute a term,
the period must end on a day certain.
In considering this article as to which the defendant relies for
the enforcement of its right to buy the property, it would seem
that it is not a term, but a condition. Considering the first
alternative, that is, until defendant shall have obtained a loan
from the National City Bank of New York it is clear that the
granting of such loans is not definite and cannot be held to
come within the terms day certain provided for in the Civil
code, for it may or it may not happen.
The loan did not materialize. And if we consider that the
period given was until such time as defendant could raise
money from other sources, we also find it to be indefinite and
contingent and so it is also a condition and not a term within
the meaning of the law.
Both parties did not put the terms in their agreement clearly
in writing. The lower courts judgment is affirmed.
HOLDINGS

Article 1194
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Sa oras ng pagkawala, pagkupas o pag unlad ng bagay bago

dumating and tiyak na araw, ang patakaran sa articulong 1189 ang
siyang masusunod.

Article 1195
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Ano man naibinigay nakabayaran bago dumating ang itinakdang

panahon, ang may pagkakautang na hindi alintana ang nakatakdang
panahon o sa kanyanyang paniniwala na ang kanyang obligasyon
ay dumating na sa itinakdang panahon at dapat nang singilin , ay
maaring bawiin kasama ang mga bunga at tubo nito.
Paalala wala kaso nababanggit ang artikulong ito.

Article 1196
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Kung kailan sa isang obligasyon may panahon na itinalaga iyon ay

ipinagpapalagay na itinakda para sa pakinabang ng magkapwa ang
nagpapautang at ang nangungutan, maliban kung kula sa usapan na
katulad at ibang pangyayari iyon ay maipapakita na ang panahon ay
itinalaga para sa pakinabang ng isa o sa kabila.
CASE DIGEST BY BONG REYES
ABESAMIS VS. WOODCRAFT WORKS, INC.
FACTS:

This case was a contract in the delivery of logs before the end of July
1951 but not earlier than April of same year as an option depending
on availability of logs and vessels between Woodcraft Works and
Abesamis Shipping. The failure of the appellant to send vessels to
Dolores, Samar was because of the storm that swept away all the
log on May 5, 1951. Under contract the delivery period of date was
accomplished and that have been agreed to avoid the storm.
Woodcraftworks sued Abesamis to bear all loss as a result of
typhoon
ISSUE:
Whether or not Abesamis is liable to pay of the loss?
HELD:
As a consequence of typhoon that struck on May 5 there was yet no
delay on the part of the Abasamis. The obligation between parties
are the reciprocal one, appellant to furnish the vessel and appellee
to furnish the logs. It was also the obligation to benefit both parties.
The period that agreed upon are decided to actually
avoid typhoons.Thecorresponding loss must be shouldered by the
appellee.

Article 1197
JANUARY 3, 2015 / JAIME ROBILLON

Kapag ang obligasyon ay hindi nagtalaga ng tiyak na panahon,

subalit mula sa kanyang natural at mga pangyayari iyon ay

maipagpapalagay na ang panahon ay binalak, ang hukuman ang

siyang mag tatakda ng lawig noon.
Sng hukuman ang siya rin magtatakda nang haba ng panahon kung
iyon ay sasang ayon sa kagustuhan ng may utanag lamang.
Sa baway pangyayari, ang mga hukuman ang siyan mag papasiya
sa gayong panahon sa ilalim ng pangyayaring mamari iyon ang
balakin ng mga partido. Kapag naitalaga na ng hukuman, ang
panahon itinakda ay hini na maari pang baguhin nila.
Halimbawang kaso ay : Cosmic Lumber Co. Inc V Manaois (106 Phil.
1015)
OLDER POSTS

HOW MANY PEOPLE VISITED US?

421,904 HITS

THE AUTHORS

Ainna Macalos-Fathi

Bong Reyes

Dione Mendoza

Allan Pailan

LSPU College of Law Batch '14

Jaime Robillon

MENU

About

OBLIGATIONS

Chapter 1: General Provisions of Obligations

Chapter 2: Nature & Effect of Obligations

Chapter 3: Different Kinds of Obligations

Section 1: Pure & Conditional Obligations

Section 2: Obligations with a Period

Section 3: Alternative Obligations

Section 4: Joint & Solidary Obligations

Section 5: Divisible & Indivisible Obligations

Section 6: Obligations with a Penal Clause

Chapter 4: Extinguishment of Obligations

General Provisions of Extinguishment of Obligations

Section 1: Payment or Performance

Subsection 1: Application of Payments

Subsection 2: Payment by Cession

Subsection 3: Tender of Payment & Consignation

Section 2: Loss of the Thing Due

Section 3: Condonation or Remission of Debt

Section 4: Confusion or Merger of Rights

Section 5: Compensation

Section 6: Novation

CONTRACTS

Chapter 1: General Provisions of Contracts

Chapter 2: Essential Requisites of Contracts

General Provisions of Essential Requisites of Contracts

Section 1: Consent

Section 2: Object of Contracts

Section 3: Cause of Contracts

Chapter 3: Form of Contracts

Chapter 4: Reformation of Instruments

Chapter 5: Interpretation of Contracts

Chapter 6: Rescissible Contracts

Chapter 7: Voidable Contracts

Chapter 8: Unenforceable Contracts

Chapter 9: Void & Inexistent Contracts

NATURAL OBLIGATIONS

ESTOPPEL (n)

TRUSTS (n)

Chapter 1: General Provisions of Trusts

Chapter 2: Express Trusts

Chapter 3: Implied Trusts

Contact Us

THE AUTHORS

CREATE A FREE WEBSITE OR BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.

Follow