Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Agner vs BPI
Death
Stronghold vs Republic Asahi
Dation in Payment
that liability.
respondent.
Application of Payments
PNB vs Ca
Culaba vs SMC
- Obligation is not extinguished. Article 1240 of the Civil Code
provides that payment shall be made to the person in whose
Typingco vs Lim
Extraordinary Inflation/Deflation
Equitable Bank v Ng Sheung Ngor
- NO extraordinary deflation
For to apply 1250, the ff requisites are required:
1. That there was an official declaration of extraordinary
inflation or deflation from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
(BSP); [no declaration from BSP]
2. That the obligation was contractual in nature; [contractual in
nature, but] and
3. That the parties expressly agreed to consider the effects of
the extraordinary inflation or deflation [parties did not agree to
recognize the effects of extraordinary inflation].
Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing
- NOT a case of extraordinary inflation or devaluation,
therefore Article 1250 does not apply.
- The erosion of the value of the Philippines peso in the past is
the characteristic of most currencies. Such downward trend of
the peso cannot be considered as the extraordinary
phenomenon contemplated by Article 1250 of the Civil Code.
- Furthermore, absent an official pronouncement or declaration
by competent authorities of the existence of extraordinary
inflation during a given period, the effects of extraordinary
inflation are not to be applied.
Application of Payments
Premiere Development Bank v. Central Surety
- YES, correct application of payment because creditor is given
the right to apply payments
- Notwithstanding the fact that 1252 of the Civil Code provides
that the debtor shall have the right to choose how the debt is
applied, in the case at bar, it was expressly stipulated in the
promissory note that PDB reserved the right to apply the
payments made by the debtor in any manner it saw fit.
Such was the contract between the parties and thus this must
be respected.
ESPINA VS CA
WON payment made on October 28, 1992 in the amount of
Php 100,000.00 be applied as payment for purchase of the
condominium unit
- NO. Petitioner terminated the provisional deed of sale.
Nonetheless, respondent Diaz continued to occupy the
premises, as lessee, but failed to pay the rentals due. When
respondent made a payment of P100,000.00 on October 28,
1992, the payment made may be applied either to the back
rentals or for the purchase of the condominium unit.
- Unless the application of payment is expressly indicated, the
payment shall be applied to the obligation most onerous
to the debtor. In this case, the unpaid rentals constituted the
more onerous obligation of the respondent to petitioner.
Compensation
BPI v CA
Legal Compensation is proper. Art 1290 provides that
if all the requisites laid down in Ar. 1279 concurs, Legal
Compensation takes place even without the knowledge of the
parties, and that its effect rise on the very day the requisites
concur. The obligors bound principally are at the same time
creditors of each other. BPI stands as a debtor of Reyes, a
depositor. At the same time, said bank is the creditor of the
Reyes with respect to the dishonored U.S. Treasury Warrant
which the latter illegally transferred to his joint account. The
debts involved consist of a sum of money. They are due,
liquidated, and demandable. They are not claimed by a third
person.
The want of consent of his wife is of no moment
because to frustrate the application of legal compensation on
the ground that the parties are not all mutually obligated
(specifically the wife) would result in unjust enrichment on the
part of the Reyes and his wife who herself out of honesty has
not objected to the debit.
PNB v CA
PNB cannot make a legal set off against the
remittances coursed through in favour of Sapphire even if the
latter is indebted to it with regards to the double credit. The
reason is that the first requirement in Art. 1279 is not present
parties are bound principally.
The relationship created by the telexed fund transfers from
abroad: A contract between a foreign bank and local bank
asking the latter to pay an amount to a beneficiary is a
stipulation pour autrui.
Hence the parties are not both principally bound with
respect to the $2,627.11 from Jeddah neither are they at the
same time principal creditor of the other. Therefore, as matters
stand, the parties' obligations are not subject to compensation
or set off under Art. 1279 of the Civil Code, for the reason that
the defendant is not a principal debtor nor is the plaintiff a
principal creditor insofar as the amount of $2,627.11 is
concerned. They are debtor and creditor only with respect to
the double payments; but are trustee-beneficiary as to the fund
transfer of $2,627.11.
EGV Realty v CA
Compensation is not proper because the
P12,295(amount stolen from Unisphere) is not a debt but a
claim.
At best, what Unisphere has against EGV is just a
claim, not a debt. Such being the case, it is not enforceable in
court. It is only the debts that are enforceable in court, there
being no apparent defenses inherent in them. Unispheres
claim for its loss has not been passed upon by any legal
authority so as to elevate it to the level of a debt.
Compensation or offset takes place by operation of
law when two (2) persons, in their own right, are creditor and
debtor of each other. For compensation to take place, a
distinction must be made between a debt and a mere claim. A
debt is a claim which has been formally passed upon by the
highest authority to which it can in law be submitted and has
NOVATION
Licaros v Gatmaitan
No Subrogation.
All parties, specifically Anglo-Asean, did not consent,
as stated in their MOA.
-
Garcia v Llamas
No novation
Garcia has not shown that he was expressly released
from the obligation, that a third person was
substituted in his place, or that the joint and solidary
obligation was cancelled and substituted by the
solidary undertaking of De Jesus.
California Bus Lines v State Investments
No novation
Parties did not expressly stipulate that the
restructuring agreement novated the promissory
notes, neither was there absolute or complete
incompatibility between the restructuring agreement
and the promissory notes.
Aquintey v Tibong
No novation but dacion en pago.
No consent of the new debtors, although they had
knowledge.
Ricarze v. CA
There is legal subrogation which took place by
operation of law.
Even if Ricarze had no knowledge of or that he did
not consent to the subrogation, it takes place by
operation of law (even if against their will) once the
requisites are complied with.
Ledonio Vs. Capitol Investment
- No. There was no Novation.
- The transaction between Ms. Picache and Capitol was an
assignment
of
credit
and
not
conventional
subrogation(novation), and does not require Ledonios consent
as debtor for its validity and enforceability.
- The Assignment of Credit by Ms. Picache in favor of
respondent, was a simple deed of assignment. There is
nothing in the said Assignment of Credit which imparts to this
Court, whether literally or deductively, that a conventional
subrogation was intended by the parties thereto. The terms of
the Assignment of Credit only convey the straightforward
intention of Ms. Picache to sell, assign, transfer, and convey
to respondent the debt due her from petitioner, as evidenced
by the two promissory notes of the latter
Valenzuela Vs. Kalayaan Development
-No novation.
- The contract to sell was not novated when Juliet was
allegedly designated as the new debtor and substituted the
petitioners in paying the balance of the purchase price.
- There is only one existing and binding contract between the
parties, because Kalayaan never agreed to the creation of a
new contract between them or Juliet. True, petitioners may
have offered that they be substituted by Juliet as the new
debtor to pay for the remaining obligation. Nonetheless,
Kalayaan did not acquiesce to the proposal.
Its acceptance of several payments after it demanded
that petitioners pay their outstanding obligation did not modify
their original contract. Petitioners, admittedly, have been in
default; and Kalayaans acceptance of the late payments is, at
best, an act of tolerance on the part of Kalayaan that could not
have modified the contract.
Tomimbang Vs. Tomimbang
-Yes. There was novation.
- by virtue of the subsequent agreement, the parties mutually
dispensed with the condition that petitioner shall only begin
paying after the completion of all renovations. There was, in
effect, a modificatory or partial novation, of petitioner's
obligation.
1.
2.
3.
4.