F - Alternative, Joint & Solidary Obligations Flashcards
Principle behind Agoncillo v. Javier (1918)
A partial payment or acknowledgement made by one of the several joint debtors will NOT stop the running of the statute of limitations [as to the others]
- The debt was acknowledged in a document signed by the defendants in 1904
- No part of the debt had been paid, except for a partial payment made by Anastasio Alano (defendant) in 1908
- court ruled that the debt had prescribed as the action to recover the debt was not filed within the prescribed period of ten years.
[gpt]
When one of several joint debtors makes a partial payment or acknowledgment, it can have the effect of extending the time within which the creditor can pursue legal action against all debtors. This action benefits the creditor, as it prevents the statute of limitations from expiring
MARCH 6 - LECTURE
MARCH 6 - LECTURE
S executed a Contract to Sell in favor of B involving a parcel of land. The terms of the payment are 12
equal monthly installments at P200,000.00. B paid all 11 monthly installments in full, but only gave P180,
000.00 for the 12th installment. Is there breach of obligation in this case?
no breach because there is no sale.
breaching party is not entitled to exercise the recisionn because it is a right avaialbe to the injured party .
1186 - doctrine of constructive fulfilmnet
“The condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment.”
Phil long distance company v Jeturian - https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/summary/philippine-long-distance-telephone-co-v-jeturian?q=Jeturian#_
2 conditions in this case
- 20 years in service
- turn 45
…not withsatanding ti was cnacelled or revoked by the comapny. this is a clssic exapmle of constructive fulfillmnet
ex.
juan turns 50, 5 years from now and comply with residency requirements 5 eyars from now and board stops the pension plan so juan after turning 50, the phil long distance company PREVENTED THE FULFILMENT OF THE CONDITION (use these term) then the condition is deemed fulfilled.
On January 10, 2014, S obliged himself to deliver his taxi unit, to B, “if B will be terminated by his company by retrenchment (lay-off)” before 2014 ends. B is given a discounted price of P300,000.00. This amount is in B’s time deposit in a local bank. In the meantime, S receives a daily income from his unit.
A. Suppose that B executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in Favor of T on July 10, 2019, is the DOS valid?
B. What are the obligations of the parties in this case if B will be laid-off on December 30, 2014?
C. Will your answer be the same, if S promised to “donate” his taxi unit to B instead?
it is a condition because
- in the future
- uncertain (since there are many grounds for termination; dismissal from service, etc)
[A]
B does not have the right to sell the property he does not own YET.
has the condition here been fulfilled? that will depend before 2014 ends, if it is fulfilled, then we apply 1187 “it shall retroact to the day of the constittion” [January 10, 2014) the effecet is as if buyer was the onwerfr of the property as of jan10 2014as a general rule ((12 minute mark - audio recoridng 14))
[B]
reciprocal here
the intereest earned by the [time depost of the 300k of the buyer. 300k while ewaiting for the happening of tat oncidiont, earns fruit/interest, the taxi unit as well earns fruit(rentals)
if applying reotractivity rule, the 300k should have been owned by the seller beginnginer jan 10, 2014, logicllay entitled as well to the interest,
same rule insofar as the rental of the unit is concerned. he would own the rental by jan 10 2014, but we don’t apply because ….
16% of 300k = 48k. How much do you get as bonudary rental, 1k per day thus 22k in 22 days, this rental is DEEMED COMPENSATED even if they don’t have the same value. this is to prevent controversy between the parties as a result to the fact the obligation is subject to teh condition. if thsi rule is
[C]
S killed B thus prevented the fulfillent of the condition, condition is deemed fulfilled. (case above)
thus its’s called ‘constructive’ fulfillment and not actual fulf illetn
debtors can preserve their rights, 1188
The creditor may, before the fulfillment of the condition, bring the appropriate actions for the preservation of his right.
(filing a case just like the employee in PLDc
how is constructive fulfillment illustrated in the case of IHC v. Joaquin
https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/summary/international-hotel-corp-v-joaquin-jr?q=IHC+v.+Joaquin#_
joaquin was tasked to look for a foreing financer for international hotel corporation (IHC)
what was the consideration for the service of joaquin rendering, he will be paid? – shares of stocks
was he able to get a foreing loan? – no
what did IHC do-? — cancelled the shares of stock
was it a conditional obligation to give a share of stocks - yes, the condition
what tyep of condition was it ? – mixed (while it may be dpeepndot on the will of one party, it also depends on chance whether there is an avaialbe of a foreign funder
what did IHC do after joaquin apparently failed to obtain the forein loan - it obtained a foreign loan on its own with the help of another party that completed teh task of joaquin. of course joaquiin can no longer fulfill the condition since the IHc obtained a loan
THIS IS AN ILLUSRTARTION OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE FULFILLMENT RULE. court allowed joaquin to receive fees based on quantum meruit (bc he rendered service nonetheless)
(3) When the thing deteriorates without the fault of the debtor, the impairment is to be borne by the creditor;”
if the thing is improved also by nature, the imrpovement will enure to the benefit of the creditor (5) u
1189 “ When the conditions have been imposed with the intention of suspending the efficacy of an obligation to give, the following rules shall be observed in case of the improvement, loss or deterioration of the thing during the pendency of the condition:”
who bears the loss, who bears the enjoyment, if any of these occur during the pendency of a conditional obligation. there are conditions that will occur several months or years. during which something might happen to the ‘specific thing’ (like being lost, deteriorate) what if it improves, who will enjoy it?
the rules are foudn in paragraph 1-6
if the thing is lost without fault of the debtor, obligation is extinguished. this is called fortuitous events
if the thing is lost thru the fault of the debtor, he shall be obligaed to pay damages
extinguishment
rules on the things due is 1262
1262-1269 does not define ‘loss’ 1189 paragraph 2 defines it
(2) If the thing is lost through the fault of the debtor, he shall be obliged to pay damages; it is understood that the thing is lost when it perishes, or goes out of commerce, or disappears in such a way that its existence is unknown or it cannot be recovered;
- physical loss (perisihes)
- goes out of commerce (can no longer be a valid object of contract, that very thing was declared to be an illegal object in a contract/transaction [like a king cobra is now being prohibited in the sale thus goes out of commerce]
- it disappears in such a way that its existence is unknown or it cannot be recovered ( the whereabouts are either unknown) [ex. the pendant in titanic, ] or if you know its whereabouts but cannot be recovered [a ring in the pacific ocean]
when is a thing considered lost? answer with 1189 (2)
par 1 -2 governs laws
3 -4 = deterioration
“If it is improved at the expense of the debtor, he shall have no other right than that granted to the usufructuary. (1122)”
usufructuary - foreigners cant own private lands (condos aren’t lands, yes but not more than 40% of condo units)
EXC by hereditary succession
the way to enjoy a land (ex farm land) is to grant him/enter with him into a contract of usufruct
the usufructuary gets to enjoy or exercise ALL rights of an owner except naked title (just the ownership)
mr. smith can enjoy, possess, plant, develop, bxta except ownership, HE CAN’T SELL it because mr. smith doesn’t own but has all the other rights
after the expriation of the usufructuary, the improvements . rule; if th usu improves with his own funds, he has the right to remove it for so as long as it does not casuse damage to the proerty [not really important] ex. introducing solar panels, rmeoving it wont’ cause damage whereas it is reommving of stiarcase (PROPERTY LAW)
remember in the exam usufructuary but not the rights therewith
