PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Novation is a juridical act of dual function—it extinguishes an obligation, and at the same time, it creates a new one in lieu of the old. It operates as a relative, not an absolute, extinction.  There are different kinds of novation.  As to origin. 1. Legal - takes place by operation of law; or 2. Conventional - takes place by agreement of parties. As to form.  1. Express - when it is declared in unequivocal terms; or 2. Implied - when the old and new obligations are on every point incompatible with each other. In California Bus Line v. State Investment,[1] the Supreme Court held that in the absence of an unequivocal declaration of extinguishment of the pre-existing obligation, only proof of incompatibility between the old and new obligation would warrant a novation by implication. Moreover, the test of incompatibility decides whether or not the two obligations can stand together, each one having its independent existence. If they cannot, they are incompatible and the latter obligatio

The effect of assignment of rights by the creditor to a third person is discussed in Article 1285 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, to wit: ART. 1285. The debtor who has consented to the assignment of rights made by a creditor in favor of a third person, cannot set up against the assignee the compensation which would pertain to him against the assignor, unless the assignor was notified by the debtor at the time he gave his consent, that he reserved his right to the compensation. If the creditor communicated the cession to him but the debtor did not consent thereto, the latter may set up the compensation of debts previous to the cession, but not of subsequent ones. If the assignment is made without the knowledge of the debtor, he may set up the compensation of all credits prior to the same and also later ones until he had knowledge of the assignment. (1198a) The above provision addresses cases of compensation which takes place after an assignment of rights made by the creditor

Article 1280 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: ART. 1280. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article, the guarantor may set up compensation as regards what the creditor may owe the principal debtor . (1197) The extinguishment of the principal obligation due to compensation carries with it the accessory obligation. A guarantor's obligation is an accessory one. Therefore, the guarantor is given the right to set up compensation as regards what the creditor may owe the principal debtor. (De Leon, 2014).

Compensation takes place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. However, there are obligations which cannot be compensated. These obligations are expressed in Articles 1287 and 1288 of the Civil Code, to wit: ART. 1287. Compensation shall not be proper when one of the debts arises from a depositum or from the obligations of a depositary or of a bailee in commodatum. Neither can compensation be set up against a creditor who has a claim for support due by gratuitous title, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 301. (1200a) ART. 1288. Neither shall there be compensation if one of the debts consists in civil liability arising from a penal offense. (n) The contract of depositum and commodatum cannot be compensated. Future support due by gratuitous title cannot also be compensated as stated in paragraph 2 of  Art. 1287. Furthermore, civil liability arising from a penal clause cannot be compensated. In Metropolitan v. Ton

The following are kinds of compensation: 1. As to extent : a. Total - when both obligations are of the same amount and are entirely extinguished[1]; or b. Partial - when the two obligations are of different amounts and a balance remains.[2] 2. As to cause : a. Legal - takes place by operation of law from the moment all requisites are present even without the knowledge of both parties[3][4]; b. Voluntary - takes place when parties who are mutually creditors and debtors of each other agree to compensate their respective obligations even though one of the requisites of compensation may be lacking[5]; c. Judicial - by judicial decree[6]; and d. Facultative - can only be set up at the option of a creditor, when legal compensation cannot take place because some legal requisites in favor of the creditor are lacking. [1] Article 1281, Civil Code. [2] Id. [3] Article 1279, Civil Code. [4] Article 1290, Civil Code. [5] Article 1282, Civil Code. [6] Article 1283, Civil Code.

Article 1277 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: ART. 1277. Confusion does not extinguish a joint obligation except as regards the share corresponding to the creditor or debtor in whom the two characters concur. (1194) In a join obligation, there are as many debts as there are debtors and credits as there are creditors. It is considered that these debts and credits are distinct and separate.[1][2] When confusion takes place in a joint obligation, the obligation is only extinguished in so far as the share in the debt and credit of the corresponding debtor and creditor in whom the two characters merged. As to the obligation of other joint debtors and creditors, it will remain the same. However, when confusion takes place in solidary obligation, the obligation is extinguished but the other debtors may be liable for reimbursement if payment was made prior to remission.[3][4] [1] Article 1208, Civil Code. [2] De Leon. (2014). Obligations and Contracts. [3] Article 1215, Civil C

For a confusion to take place it must be between the principal debtor and creditor and the same obligation must be involved. The obligation is extinguished from the time the characters of debtor and creditor are merged in the same person.[1] Article 1276 of the Civil Code discusses the effect of merger upon guarantors, to wit: ART. 1276. Merger which takes place in the person of the principal debtor or creditor benefits the guarantors. Confusion which takes place in the person of any of the latter does not extinguish the obligation. (1193)  If a merger takes place between the principal debtor or creditor , the principal obligation is extinguished. Thus, it will benefit the guarantor because the obligation of the guarantor is merely an accessory obligation. Since the guarantor's obligation is an accessory one, the extinguishment of principal obligation also results to extinguishment of the accessory obligation. However, when confusion takes place between the principal creditor an

Article 1275 of the Civil Code of the Philippines discusses the concept of compensation, to wit: ART. 1275. The obligation is extinguished from the time the characters of creditor and debtor are merged in the same person. (1192a) Confusion or merger is the meeting in one person of the qualities of creditor and debtor with respect to the same obligation.[1][2] It takes place between the principal debtor and creditor  and the very same obligation must be involved. In  Valmonte v. CA,[3] the Supreme Court held that the confusion must be total, i.e. as regards the whole obligation. When confusion takes place, the obligation is extinguished. The reason behind this is because it is absurd that a person should enforce an obligation against himself.[4] For example, A executed a promissory note payable to B. B payed his debt to C using the promissory note executed by A. Turns out C is has an obligation to pay A. C then payed A the promissory note executed by the latter to B. Here the obligati

Article 1270 of the Civil Code states that express remission is subject to the formalities as donations, to wit: ART. 1270. Condonation or remission is essentially gratuitous, and requires the acceptance by the obligor. It may be made expressly or impliedly. One and the other kind shall be subject to the rules which govern inofficious donations. Express condonation shall, furthermore, comply with the forms of donation . (1187) The express condonation of a movable or personal property may be made either orally or in writing. Under Article 748 of the Civil Code, if the value of of the personal property donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing. Otherwise, the donation shall be void. Moreover, in the express condonation of an immovable property, in order for the donation to be valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy. The acceptance

Remission is an act of liberality, by virtue of which, without receiving any equivalent, the creditor renounces the enforcement of the obligation. The obligation is extinguished either in whole or in such part of the same to which remission refers.[1]When the debt refers to movable or personal property, Art. 748 will govern; if it refers to immovable or real property, Art. 749 applies. The kinds of remission are: As to form: Express condonation. When it is made verbally or in writing. It is formally: in accordance with forms of ordinary donations.[2] In order to be effective, an express remission must be accepted. Furthermore, when the debt refers to movable or personal property, Art. 748 will govern; if it refers to immovable or real property, Art. 749 applies. Implied condonation. It can be inferred from the acts or conduct of the parties. As to manner or date of effectivity: Inter vivos. Effective during the lifetime of the creditor. Mortis causa. Effective upon the death of the cre

Condonation or remission of debt as a mode of extinguishment of obligation is discussed under Article 1270 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, to wit: ART. 1270. Condonation or remission is essentially gratuitous, and requires the acceptance by the obligor. It may be made expressly or impliedly. One and the other kind shall be subject to the rules which govern inofficious donations. Express condonation shall, furthermore, comply with the forms of donation. (1187) Condonation or remission is an act of liberality where the creditor gives up his right against the debtor , either in whole or in part, resulting in the extinguishment of the latter's obligation.[1][2] It is essentially gratuitous and requires the acceptance of the debtor. The reason for the need of debtor's consent is that one cannot simply impose his own generosity upon another person. The remission may be made expressly or impliedly. For a condonation or remission to be valid, the following requisites must concu

Another exception to the obligatory force of  a contract is expressed in Article 1267 of the Civil Code, to wit: ART. 1267. When the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in part. (n) The obligor may be released from his obligation even if the prestation is still possible, if the prestation is  extremely difficult and the event or change in circumstances could not have been foreseen by parties at the time of the execution of the contract. Note that the event must not be due to the act of any of the parties. Moreover, in Tagaytay v. Gacutan,[1] the Supreme Court held that the contract applicable in Article 1267 is for a future prestation. Furthermore, Article 1267 enunciates the " doctrine of unforeseen events ." In PNCC v. CA,[2] the Supreme Court explained that the parties to the contract must be presumed to have assumed the risks of unfavorable developments. It

Article 1266 of the Civil Code of the Philippines discusses the exception to the obligatory force of contract referred to in Article 1159, to wit: ART. 1266. The debtor in obligations to do shall also be released when the prestation becomes legally or physically impossible without the fault of the obligor. (1184a) This provision is applicable only to obligations "to do", and not to obligations "to give."[1] The impossibility of performance must take place after the constitution of the obligation or during the performance of the obligation.[2][3]  The impossibility referred in this article is either a physical or legal impossibility . Physical impossibility is present when the act by reason of its nature cannot be accomplished. For example, X obliged himself to dance in Y's birthday. However, a month before Y's birthday, X was murdered. X being dead cannot physically perform his obligation. Thus, the obligation is extinguished. On the other hand, legal impos

Article 1264 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 1264. The courts shall determine whether, under the circumstances, the partial loss of the object of the obligation is so important as to extinguish the obligation. (n) The courts will determine if the partial loss of the thing due is so important that it would constitute the extinguishment of an obligation . Partial loss is present when only a portion of the thing  is loss or destroyed or when it suffers depreciation or deterioration.[1] For example, X obliged himself to dance for Y in his birthday. A day before Y's birthday, X was injured making it hard for him to dance. Here, the partial loss is equivalent to a complete or total loss. It is so important as to extinguishing the obligation. [1] De Leon. (2014). Obligations and Contracts.

The loss of a generic thing is governed by Article 1263 of the Civil Code, thus: ART. 1263. In an obligation to deliver a generic thing, the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind does not extinguish the obligation. (n) The loss of a generic thing even without debtor's fault and before he has incurred delay will not extinguish the obligation .[1] It is based on the principle that a generic thing never perishes. (Genus nunquam perit)[2][3] For example, the failure of the debtor to make payment even by reason of fortuitous event will not extinguish the obligation. This is because the obligation to pay money is a generic thing. Thus, it is not excused by fortuitous loss. [1] Rabuya. (2019). Obligations and Contracts. [2] De Leon. (2014). Obligations and Contracts. [3] Yu Tek & Co. vs. Gonzales, 29 Phil. 384 (1915) [4] Supra note 1.

The loss of a determinate thing is governed by Article 1262 of the Civil Code, to wit: ART. 1262. An obligation which consists in the delivery of a determinate thing shall be extinguished if it should be lost or destroyed without the fault of the debtor, and before he has incurred in delay. When by law or stipulation, the obligor is liable even for fortuitous events, the loss of the thing does not extinguish the obligation, and he shall be responsible for damages. The same rule applies when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk. (1182a)  A thing is considered loss if it perishes, goes out of commerce or disappears in such a way that its existence is unknown or it cannot be recovered.[1][2] The general rule is that the loss of a determinate thing extinguishes the obligation. In oobrder for the obligation to be extinguished, the following requisites must be present: a) obligation to deliver a determinate thing; b) the thing is lost or destroyed without debto

Consignation is a special kind of payment where the debtor deposit the object of the obligation to a competent court in accordance with law whenever the creditor unjustly refuses to accept payment or because there are some circumstances present where direct payment to the creditor becomes impossible or inadvisable. Article 1260 discusses the concept of debtor's withdrawal, to wit: ART. 1260. Once the consignation has been duly made, the debtor may ask the judge to order the cancellation of the obligation.  Before the creditor has accepted the consignation, or before a judicial declaration that the consignation has been properly made, the debtor may withdraw the thing or the sum deposited, allowing the obligation to remain in force. (1180) The obligation remains in force before the approval of the court or acceptance of the creditor. Under Article 1260, as a matter of right, the debtor may withdraw the thing or amount consigned before the creditor has accepted the consignation or b

Article 1257 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 1257. In order that the consignation of the thing due may release the obligor, it must first be announced to the persons interested in the fulfillment of the obligation . The consignation shall be ineffectual if it is not made strictly in consonance with the provisions which regulate payment. (1177) In order that the consignation of the thing due may release the obligor, it must first be announced to the persons interested in the fulfilment of the obligation. The consignation shall be ineffectual if it is not made strictly in consonance with the provisions which regulate payment. In Soco v. Militante,[1] the Supreme Court held that previous notice of consignation was given to those persons interested in the performance of the obligation. Previous notice is essential to the validity of the consignation and its lack invalidates the same. The purpose of notice is to give some time to the creditor for him to think of his unjustified refusal

Article 1256 of the Civil Code discusses the concept of tender of payment and consignation, to wit: ART. 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due. Consignation alone shall produce the same effect in the following cases:  (1) When the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at the place of payment; (2) When he is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due; (3) When, without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt; (4) When two or more persons claim the same right to collect; (5) When the title of the obligation has been lost. (1176a) In Far East Bank v. Diaz Realty,[1] the Supreme Court held that tender of payment is a definitive act of offering the creditor what is due him or her, together with the demand that the creditor accept the same. More important, there must be a fusion of intent, ability and

Article 1255 of the Civil Code governs the concept of payment by cession, to wit: ART. 1255. The debtor may cede or assign his property to his creditors in payment of his debts. This cession, unless there is stipulation to the contrary, shall only release the debtor from responsibility for the net proceeds of the thing assigned. The agreements which, on the effect of the cession, are made between the debtor and his creditors shall be governed by special laws. (1175a) Payment by cession is another special form of payment. It is the assignment or abandonment of all the properties of the debtor for the benefit of his creditors in order that the latter may sell the same and apply the proceeds thereof to the satisfaction of their credits.[1]  For a payment by cession to be fulfilled, the following requisites must concur: a) there is plurality of debts; b) there must be two or more creditors; c) partial or relative insolvency of the debtor; d) the assignment must involve all of debt

One of the special forms of payment under the Civil Code is dation in payment (dacion en pago). Article 1245 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 1245. Dation in payment, whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money, shall be governed by the law of sales. (n) In this kind of payment, the debtor delivers and transmits to the creditor the former's ownership over a thing as an accepted equivalent of the payment or performance of an outstanding debt.[1] The requisites for this payment are: (a) existence of a money obligation; (b) alienation to the creditor of debtor's property with the former's consent; and (c) satisfaction of the money obligation. [1] Tan Shuy v. Maulawin, 665 SCRA 604 (2012), citing Lopez v. CA, 200 Phil. 150 (2006).

Article 1252 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 1252. He who has various debts of the same kind in favor of one and the same creditor, may declare at the time of making the payment, to which of them the same must be applied. Unless the parties so stipulate, or when the application of payment is made by the party for whose benefit the term has been constituted, application shall not be made as to debts which are not yet due. If the debtor accepts from the creditor a receipt in which an application of the payment is made, the former cannot complain of the same, unless there is a cause for invalidating the contract. (1172a) The Civil Code provides four special forms of payment: (a) dation in payment[1]; (b) payment by cession[2]; (c) application of payments[3]; and (d) tender of payment and consignation.[4][5] The first paragraph of Article 1252 discusses the concept of application of payment. There is application of payment if: (a) there is plurality of debts; (b) debts are of the s

Article 1249 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: ART. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired. In the meantime, the action derived from the original obligation shall be held in abeyance. (1170) Article 1249 governs the obligation consisting payment of a sum of money. If the obligation is to pay a sum of money, general rule is to pay in the currency stipulated by both parties . If payment is not possible in such currency or in the absence of such stipulation, payment should be made in legal tender . Now, we may ask, what is legal tender? Legal tender is that currency which a debtor can l

Article 1238 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 1238. Payment made by a third person who does not intend to be reimbursed by the debtor is deemed to be a donation, which requires the debtor’s consent. But the payment is in any case valid as to the creditor who has accepted it. (n) This article embodies the idea that no one should be compelled to accept the generosity of another .[1] If the third person who payed does not intend to be reimbursed, the payment is deemed to be a donation only if the debtor's consent is present. Moreover, in the case of the creditor, the payment made by the third person who does not want to be reimbursed by the debtor is valid although the debtor did not consent to the donation.[2] [1] Report of the Code of Commission, p. 132.  [2] De Leon. (2014). Obligations and Contracts.

The rule in payments made by a third person is governed by Article 1236, to wit: ART. 1236. The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third person who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor. (1158a) The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third person who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation. The creditor may refuse payment by a third person. If the third person already payed, s/he can reimburse the payment. If the third person pays with debtor's consent, s/he may claim reimbursement for the full amount.[1] Also, the third person is presumed to be legally subrogated.[2] However, if the third person pays without the consent or knowled

Article 1229 of the Civil Code governs the rule when penalty may be reduced by courts, to wit: ART. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable. (1154a) In Imperial v. Jaucien,[1] the Supreme Court held that iniquitous and unconscionable stipulations on interest rates, penalties, and attorney’s fees are contrary to morals. The penalty provided for in the penal clause may be reduced by courts if the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with or if the penalty agreed upon is iniquitous or unconscionable.[2] In determining whether a penalty is "iniquitous or unconscionable," a court may very well take into account the actual damages sustained by a creditor who was compelled to sue a defaulting creditor, which actual damages would incl

Article 1223 of the Civil Code refers to divisibility or indivisibility of prestation, to wit: ART. 1223. The divisibility or indivisibility of the things that are the object of obligations in which there is only one debtor and only one creditor does not alter or modify the provisions of Chapter 2 of this Title. (1149) In indivisible obligation, the object is not capable of partial performance . For example, A agreed to sing B a birthday song for Php50.00. The object in their contract is not capable of partial performance. Hence, it is an indivisible obligation. Moreover, there are three kinds of indivisibility:[1] a) legal indivisibility, where a specific provision of law declares an obligation which is divisible in nature an indivisible one; b) conventional indivisibility, where the obligation is divisible but the will of the parties makes it indivisible; and c) natural indivisibility, where an obligation is indivisible because of its nature. [1] De Leon. (2014). Obligations and Cont

Article 1223 of the Civil Code refers to divisibility or indivisibility of prestation, to wit: ART. 1223. The divisibility or indivisibility of the things that are the object of obligations in which there is only one debtor and only one creditor does not alter or modify the provisions of Chapter 2 of this Title. (1149) A divisible obligation is one the object of which, in its delivery or performance, is capable of partial fulfillment . For example, A agreed to pay B Php4,000 in two equal monthly installments for his debt. Here, the obligation of A is divisible because it is capable of partial performance. There are three kinds of division[1]: a) Qualitative or one that is based on quality, e.g. A and B agreed to divide their inheritance where A gets the house and lot, and B gets a car and Php1,000,000; b) Quantitative or one that is based on quantity, e.g. A and B agreed to divide 2 parcels of land which are inherited from their parents. Each got a parcel of land; and c) Ideal or i

Mixed solidarity refers to solidarity among creditors and debtors , where each one of the debtors is liable to render, and each one of the creditors has a right to demand, entire compliance with the obligation. For example, A and B are solidarily liable to C and D, solidary creditors, in the amount of 1,000. A or B can either pay the whole amount or half to C and/or D. C and/or D can collect payment from A or B. If A paid 1,000 to C, A can reimburse to B in the amount of 500 or such amount agreed upon them. Now, C has the obligation to give D his share in the credit.

Marital infidelity[1] [1] Rex Books Store, Inc. (2018)."The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines with Special Penal Laws." Page 434.

A solidary obligation refers to an obligation where there is concurrence of several creditors, or of several debtors, or of several creditors and several debtors, by virtue of which, each of the creditors has the right to demand, and each of the debtors is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation which constitutes the object of the obligation. Under Article 1207,[1] there is solidary liability only when: (1) the obligation expressly so states; or (2) the law requires solidarity; or (3) the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. Solidary liability also exists when it is imposed in a final judgment against several defendants.[2] Moreover, solidary obligation can be legal, conventional, or real when we talk about sources . Legal are imposed by law. Conventional are agreed upon by the parties. Real are imposed by the nature of the obligation. As to parties bound , it can be active, passive, or mixed. Active refers to solidarity among creditors. Passive refers to

Article 1210 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 1210. The indivisibility of an obligation does not necessarily give rise to solidarity. Nor does solidarity of itself imply indivisibility. (n) Indivisibility is different from solidarity. The former refers to the prestation while the latter refers to the juridical tie that binds the parties. If there is breach in indivisible obligation, the debtor guilty of breach shall be the only one liable whereas in a solidary obligation, all of the debtors shall be liable if they are guilty of breach. Furthermore, indivisibility can exist even if there is only debtor and creditor while solidarity cannot exist if there is only one debtor and creditor. And in case of insolvency of one debtor, in indivisible obligation, other debtors are not liable, while in solidary obligation, the others are proportionately liable.

Aricle 1208 of the Civil Code discusses the concept of joint divisible obligations, to wit: ART. 1208. If from the law, or the nature or the wording of the obligations to which the preceding article refers the contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many equal shares as there are creditors or debtors, the credits or debts being considered distinct from one another, subject to the Rules of Court governing the multiplicity of suits. (1138a) The preceding article governs the equal sharing of creditors and debtors in the credit or debt in the absence of any stipulation or law to the contrary.[1] If the law or contract is silent as to how the credit or debt will be divided in a joint obligation, the same shall be divided equally to the creditors or debtors.  Furthermore, a joint divisible obligation is one where a concurrence of several creditors, or of several debtors, or of several creditors and debtors, by virtue of which, each of the cr

Facultative obligation refers to one where only one prestation has been agreed upon but the obligor may render another in substitution.[1] In facultative obligation, the right of choice always belongs to the debtor because that is the very nature of the obligation.[2] The debtor need not communicate if he intend to perform the original prestation because that is already expected by the creditor. If the substitute prestations are lost or become impossible to perform before substitution , the debtor is not liable. However, if substitution has been made and communicated to the creditor, the loss or deterioration of the substitute on account of the debtor's delay, negligence, or fraud, renders the debtor liable. This is because once the substitution is made, the obligation is converted into a simple one with the substituted things as the object of the obligation. [1] De Leon. (2014). Obligations and Contracts. [2] Rabuya. (2019). Obligations and Contracts.

Article 1206 of the Civil Code discusses the concept of facultative obligation, viz.: ART. 1206. When only one prestation has been agreed upon, but the obligor may render another in substitution, the obligation is called facultative.   The loss or deterioration of the thing intended as a substitute, through the negligence of the obligor, does not render him liable. But once the substitution has been made, the obligor is liable for the loss of the substitute on account of his delay, negligence or fraud. (n) A facultative obligation refers to only one prestation agreed upon, but the obligor may render another in substitution . For example, I will give you my phone but I may give you my laptop as a substitute. In this obligation, only the phone is due, Hence, the lost of the laptop will not render the obligor liable. However, if the substitution has been made, the laptop becomes due and demandable. The loss of the laptop will render the obligor liable. Things to remember in facultati

Article 1204 of the Civil Code applies when the right of choice belongs to the debtor , to wit: ART. 1204. The creditor shall have a right to indemnity for damages when, through the fault of the debtor, all the things which are alternatively the object of the obligation have been lost, or the compliance of the obligation has become impossible.  The indemnity shall be fixed taking as a basis the value of the last thing which disappeared, or that of the service which last became impossible. Damages other than the value of the last thing or service may also be awarded. (1135a) What happens when the debtor has the right of choice in an alternative obligation and the prestations are lost or become impossible? If due to a fortuitous event all of the prestations are lost or become impossible, the debtor is released from the obligation. If  all of the prestations are lost or become impossible because of debtor's fault, the creditor shall have a right to indemnity for damages based o

Article 1200 of the Civil Code governs the right of choice in an alternative obligation, which states: ART. 1200. The right of choice belongs to the debtor, unless it has been expressly granted to the creditor. The debtor shall have no right to choose those prestations which are impossible, unlawful or which could not have been the object of the obligation. (1132) As a general rule, the right to choose the prestation belongs to the debtor [1] except if it is expressly granted to the creditor or it is expressly granted to a third person. Moreover, the notice of selection or choice may be in any form provided it is sufficient to make the other party know that the selection has been made. It can be in oral, writing, tacit, or any other equivocal means. The effect of the notice is to limit the obligation to the object or prestation selected. The obligation is converted into a simple obligation to perform the prestation chosen. Once a selection has been communicated, it is irrevocable

The rule on alternative obligations is governed by Article 1199 of the Civil Code, which states: ART. 1199. A person alternatively bound by different prestations shall completely perform one of them. The creditor cannot be compelled to receive part of one and part of the other undertaking. (1131) An alternative obligation is one wherein various prestations are due but the performance of one of them is sufficiently determined by the choice which, as a general rule, belongs to the debtor.[1]  Things to remember in an alternative obligation: a) of the two or more prestations, several are due ; b) may be complied with by performance of one of the prestations which are alternatively due ; c) the right of choice belongs to the debtor , unless it has been expressly granted to the creditor; d) loss/impossibility of all prestations due to a fortuitous event shall extinguish the obligation; e) loss/impossibility of one of the prestations does not extinguish the obligation; and f) culpable

Article 1197 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 1197. If the obligation does not fi x a period, but from its nature and the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended, the courts may fi x the duration thereof.  The courts shall also fi x the duration of the period when it depends upon the will of the debtor.  In every case, the courts shall determine such period as may under the circumstances have been probably contemplated by the parties. Once fixed by the courts, the period cannot be changed by them. (1128a) Courts may fix the period of an obligation when: a) the obligation does not fix a period but from its nature and the circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended; and b) the obligation depends upon the will of the debtor. In Araneta v. Phil. Sugar Estates,[1] the Supreme Court held that courts must decide the period “probably contemplated by the parties” if the court determines that one of the circumstances are present, to wit: a) obligation doe

Article 1196 of the Civil Code of the Philippines discusses the presumption as to benefit of the period, to wit: ART. 1196. Whenever in an obligation a period is designated, it is presumed to have been established for the benefit of both the creditor and the debtor , unless from the tenor of the same or other circumstances it should appear that the period has been established in favor of one or of the other. (1127) If the period is for the benefit of either of the creditor or debtor, the creditor may demand the fulfillment or performance of the obligation at any time but the obligor cannot compel him to accept payment before the expiration of the period and the debtor may oppose any premature demand on the part of the obligee for the performance of the obligation, or if he so desires, he may renounce the benefit of the period by performing his obligation in advance. If the period is for the benefit of the debtor alone, he shall lose every right to make use of it: (a) when after the

The 2020/2021 Bar examinations have been postponed. According to Bar Bulletin No. 28, s. 2021, the Supreme Court considered the national COVID-19 situation and the situation in all the testing sites, as well as advice from various experts, in deciding to reset the schedule of the Bar Examinations from November 2021 to January 16, 23, 30, and February 6. According to said Bulletin, the Court did this out of an abundance of caution and to assure the highest level of safety for all the bar applicants and personnel. However, there are those who hypothesize that the problem is not really the COVID-19 situation but problems with the BAR PLUS and the first-time use of ExamSoft in the conduct of the Bar examinations in the Philippines. It would not be surprising to experience problems with a system during its first implementation, such as the first implementation of BAR PLUS. Even the biggest technology companies like Facebook and Google experience glitches and bugs from time to time.