Potestative, Casual, and Mixed Flashcards
March 18 - Potestative, Casual, and Mixed
March 18 - Potestative, Casual, and Mixed
Potestative - dependent upon the will of one of the parties
keyword: SOLE WILL of either of the parties
potestative period - dpeends on the sole will with one of the parties
but not all potestative conditions are valid (if debtor, it is void) potestative on part of the debtor in a suspensive condition, other potestative, it is valid.
if the happening of the condition depends upon chance -> CASUAL
or if it depends on the will of the person other than the parties (3rd person) -> casual
what makes causual relevant
relating it to a potestative condition. bc if it is potest condition and AT THE SAME TIME dependent on chance, hazard, or will of a third party, then it is MIXED obligation and is valid
standing alone, d
‘i will give 10m if i want to’ (potestative on part of the debtor)
it is the obligation that is
it is the obligation that is null and void
there are also cases where the condition is null & void therefore it becomes a pure condition
what is potestative is period/term, it is valid, the remedy is
- go to court and ask the court to fix the period.
‘as soon as i have the money’ that is potestative and it is not void because there is commitment to pay except that the arrival depends. so the remedy of the creditor is to ask the court ot fix the period
“A offered to install an aircon system in B’s building. In a letter, B informed A that B has accepted the offer to install the aircon system at the price, quality, number of units and specifications mentioned by A when he made the offer “subject to the condition that A will start the project immediately and shall complete the project in 30 days.” But, before A could start the project, B contracted C to do the project. When A protested, B argued that there was no perfected contract between them because the contract was subject to a suspensive condition that did not happen. Is B’s contention meritorious? Why or why not?”
- the contract here is perfected
- performance is subject to that condition
- when contracting another AC installer, B breached the contract (since the contract was perfected)
— There is a distinction between a condition imposed
on the perfection of a contract and a condition imposed merely on the performance of an obligation. While failure to comply with the first condition results in the failure of a contract, failure to comply with the second merely gives the other party options and/or remedies to protect his interests. (see Jardine Davies, Inc. vs. CA)
conditional obligation deals with the establishment on the extinguishment of the OBLIGATION. where the obligation is established, any use of the word condition does not make the word
“1. D promised to give C his only car “as soon as D receives funds derived funds from the sale of his
property in the US.””
“i will give you my phone as soon as i receive sale of my tumbler”
i may or may not sell the tumblr. sale of that, will there be a chance that i’ll be getting the money? that one aspect is not dpeendnt on his will
“2. D promised to give C his only wristwatch “after he(D) has harvested fish.”
IS IT VALID?
- fish is really there
- debtor now may or may not decide to harveste (potestative on part of the debtor)
- D promised to pay his PN “after he has sold his car (D)
distinguish from the first, the first, the sale is certain whereas here,
● the obligation to pay “as soon as he (intestate) receive funds derived from the sale of his property in
Spain “discloses the fact that the condition does not depend exclusively upon the will of the debtor, but
also upon other circumstances beyond his power or control (such as buyer who will be willing to buy,
etc.) (The SC distinguishes this from “if he desires to sell his property”. etc) [Hermosa vs Longara]
Even if a part of the contract is postestative, if it is also covered by a casual condition, the contract
cannot be considered void, for by then, the contract is actually covered by “mixed conditions” [ Naga
Telephone Co. vs CA]
naga telephone company, the electric company was the first to provide electricity in the area
NTComp started offering telephon services, instead of putting up its own poles, they enter into MOA with the electric company to the effect that they will use the electrical post subjected for consideration.
after 10 years, telephone subscribers grew rapidly and the electric company noticed that their electric posts can no longer accommodate and filed a case TO REFORM THE CONTRACT.– the EC wnated to stop NTC from using their posts
“Said contract also provided:
“(a) That the term or period of this contract shall be as long as the party of the first part (NTC) has need for the electric light posts of the party of the second party (EC) it being understood that this contract shall terminate when for any reason whatsoever, the party of the second part is forced to stop, abandoned sic its operation as a public service and it becomes necessary to remove the electric lightpost;”
they argued it is void as potestative. IOW, the continuation of the contract depends upon the sole will of one of the parties.
principle of mutuality the performance of the terms of the contract CANNOT be left to the sole will of one of the contracting parties.
Art. 1308. The contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them.”
[ex]
lease contracts :this lease contract shall continue ,, for as long as the lessee needs the property. what is the effect? forever na siya, you as the owner has no say to stop the contract. [this is not allowed]
so in this case, the lessee can decide won to remain in the contract
“The term or period of this contract shall be as long as the party of the first part /Naga Tel) has need for the electric light posts of the party of the second part /Camarines Sur Electrich it being understood
this contract shall
terminate when for any reason whatsoever, the party of the second part (private respondent) is forced to stop, abandon its operation as a public service and it becomes necessary to remove the electric light post (sic)” (Naga Telephone Co., Inc.
v. Court of Appeals (1994])
on 28th minute of the recording, it showed how something can be potestative and valid so it’s x y z
MIXED CONDITIONAL OBLIGATION
dependent not only upon the will of the obligor, but also chance, hazard or will of third person
it si valid
“when the condition was not fulfilled but the obligor did all his power to
comply with the obligation, the condition should be deemed satisfied.”
IMPOSSIBLE CONDITIONS
I.C. (and those contrary to good customs, public policy or law) shall annul the obligation which depends upon it. (1183)
note: a negative impossible condition will not annul the obligation! the condition will only have to be Disregarded (as if not agreed upon)
Art. 1183. Impossible conditions, those contrary to good customs or public policy and those prohibited by law shall annul the obligation which depends upon them. If the obligation is divisible, that part thereof which is not affected by the impossible or unlawful condition shall be valid.
The condition not to do an impossible thing shall be considered as not having been agreed upon.
if the impossible condition is negative, obligation is valid , just disregard the condition
in impossible positive, it is VOID. debtor is not sincere in this case “i give 10m if you go to the sun”
negative impossible “i give 10m if i am NOT able to land on the sun” here, just disregard the negative impossible and thus it becomes Ipure and demandable at once
More on
Rescission under 1191:
0/90800
See:
-Nolasco vs. Cuerpo (2015): “substantial
breach” = that which “defeats the object of
the agreement”;
-Fong vs. Dueñas (2015): “if it cannot be determined which of the parties first violated the contract, the same shall be deemed extinguished, and each shall bear his own damages (NCC 1192)”;
-PEZA vs. Pilhino Sales Corp. (2015):
“liquidated damages may still be awarded despite rescission” vs. Siy vs.
CA [1985]
