Article 1169

NOVEMBER 28, 2014 / AINNA MACALOS-FATHI

Ang mga obligadong mag hatid o magsagawa ng isang bagay ay mababalam mula sa
oras na ang obligee ay judicially o extra judicially na hiningi na maisagawa o maihatid
ang bagay na ito.

Ngunit, ang paghingi o pag demand ng obligee o ng nagpautang ay hindi

kinakailangan upang masabi na mayroon nang balam sa mga sitwasyon na ito:

1. Kapag nakasaad ito sa obligasyon o sa batas.

2. Kapag ayon sa kallikasan ng obligasyon na ang pag tatakda ng oras ay ang nag
cocontrol na motibo ng pagtatala ng kontrata.
3. Kapag ang demand o paghingi ay walang bisa. Katulad ng pagkakataon na
naisakatuparan na ng obligor ang bagay na ito ng higit pa sa kakayahan nyang
maikumpleto o maisakatuparan ito.
Sa reciprocal obligations, wala sa sino mang piging ay mababalam kung ang isa ay
hindi isasakatuparan o hindi handa na isagawa ang bagay na ito sa tamang paraan.
Kapag nagawa na ng isang piging ang kanyang obligasyon, ang balam ng isa ay
magsisimula.

Case: Julio de la Rosa v. The Bank of the Philippine Islands (51 PHIL. 926),
Nov. 28, 1924

PETITIONER-APPELLEE: Julio de la Rosa

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: The Bank of the Philippine Islands

PONENTE: Romualdez, J.

On June 11, 1923, a complaint was filed by Julio de la Rosa on the ground that
the defendant bank started a contest of designs and plans for the construction
of a building, and announced that prizes would be awarded no later than
November 30, 1921.

De la Rosa, the plaintiff, claimed that he joined the said contest and performed
work and incurred expenses for that purpose. Also, the said bank did not name
the contest judges and failed to ward the prizes in accordance to the contest
conditions stipulated. Because of this, the plaintiff prays that judgment be
FACTS rendered in his favor for the sum of Php 30,000 as damages, with interests and
 costs.

The trial court ruled in favor of de la Rosa, ordering BPI to pay the plaintiff an
indemnity of Php 4,000 and the costs.

Both parties appealed from this judgment, the plaintiff argued that the trial
court erred:

1. In holding that the sum of P4,000 was a just and reasonable indemnity to
the plaintiff.

2. In not ordering the defendant bank to pay the P30,000 prayed for in the
complaint.

The defendant bank, in turn, assigned the following errors as committed by the
trial court:

1. In holding that the date set for the award of prizes is essential in the
contract.

2. In ordering that the sum of P4,000 be paid to the plaintiff.

Whether the defendant bank was in default in not awarding the prizes on
ISSUE/S November 30, 1921

Article 1100 (The Civil Code of the Philippines): Persons obliged to deliver or
to do something are in default from the moment the creditor demands of them
judicially or extrajudicially the fulfillment of their obligation.
Nevertheless, the demand of the creditor shall not be necessary in order that
the default may arise

1. When the obligator or the law expressly so provides;

2. When by reason of the nature and circumstances of the obligation it shall

appear that the designation of the time at which the thing was to be delivered
LAWS or the service rendered was the principal inducement to the creation of the
 obligation.

In reciprocal obligations neither of the obligators shall be in default if the

other does not fulfill or does not submit to the fulfillment of that which is
incumbent upon him. From the time on the obliges performs his obligation the
default begins for the other party.

Article 1169 (The New Civil Code of the Philippines): Those obliged to
deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially
or extrajudicially

demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation.

However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay
may exist:

(1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declare; or

(2) When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it appears
that the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the service
is to be rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the
contract; or

(3) When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it
beyond his power to perform.

In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not
comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent
upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by
the other begins. (1100a)

No. The defendant bank cannot be held to have been in default through the
mere lapse of time. For this judicial or extrajudicial demand was necessary for
the performance of the obligation, and it was not alleged here, nor does it
appear that before bringing this action the plaintiff had ever demanded it from
the defendant bank in any manner whatsoever. The defendant bank, therefore,
was not in default.
HOLDINGS The plaintiff invoked paragraph 2 of Article 1100 of the Civil Code and
 contended that November 30, 1921 was the principal inducement because of
the current cost of concrete buildings at the time was fixed. The fixation of
said price cannot be considered as the controlling factor of setting the date of
the awarding of prizes/contract but just for the uniformity of the designs to be
presented and to secure greater justice in the appreciation of relative merits of
each work submitted.

Since the date was not a controlling motive for the establishment of the
contract, the plaintiff cannot invoke the exception on Article 1100 of the Civil
Code. Thus, a judicial or extrajudicial demand was necessary for the
performance of the obligation, and in this case was not done by de la Rosa.

The plaintiff had no cause of action; the judgment was reversed.

Discussion
TERMS:
The Kind of Delay Applicable to Article 1169 is Legal Delay or Default
(Mora)and not ordinary delay.
Extra-judicial- Done outside of court (sending of demand letter by creditor or
by his lawyer
Judicial done by filing of a formal complaint in court
Article 1169 discusses that as a GENERAL RULE, a judicial and extra-judicial
demand by the creditor signals the delay to deliver something by the debtor.

The exceptions to the rule are also listed in Art. 1169: Demand may not be necessary
in the following circumstances:

1. When the obligation or the law expressly stipulates (example: a newborn

should have its Fact of Birth registered immediately, otherwise, penalty will be
imposed for its late registration
2. From the nature and circumstances of the obligation When the choosing of
the time of delivery of the obligation is the controlling factor for the
creation of the contract or the obligation. (example: when there is an
obligation to build a convention hall as the site of an international event that
will be help on a specific date. Time is of the essence)
3. When the demand would be useless (example: When on performs the
prestation impossible of performance (like an impossible crime) as the very
thing to be delivered has already been destroyed)
 4. When the debtor admits he is in default (No need to further demand to put
the debtor in default)
However: Asking for an extension is not indicative of acknowledging default.
In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs default when the other does not comply
in a proper manner required of him (when one fulfills his obligation, delay by the
other begins)

***Without DEMAND, the effects of default shall not arise***

Example: One cannot be ordered to vacate a leased property for non-payment of dues
when the lessors collector fails to collect the same (when there is no agreement on
place of payment, collection must be made in the domicile of the lessee)

EFFECT of LACK OF DEMAND

When there is NO DATE fixed for delivery, time is NOT considered essential. In this
case, delivery must be done within a reasonable timeframe to be fixed by the court
based on the circumstances of the case.

When the TIME is fixed for the fulfillment of the obligation, no further demand or
notice by the obligee or creditor is needed.

In case of DOUBT on whether a debtor is in default of his obligation, the doubt shall
be resolved in the debtors favor because dispensing the required demand is just an
exception to the general rule.

Classes of MORA
1. Mora Solvendi default on the part of the debtor/obligor
Requisites:
Obligation pertains to the debtor/obligor
Obligation is determinate (susceptible of particular designation) or liquidated;
due and demandable
Obligation has not been performed on its maturity date
***It is not enough to fix a period in the contract, demand is still needed to put the
debtor in default.

Does not apply on:

Natural obligations being based on equity and natural law, do not grant a
right of action to enforce their performance
 Negative obligations a person cannot be tardy in not doing something that is
prohibited
Effects:
Ex Re: Default in Real Obligations
Ex Persona: Default in Personal Obligations
Debtor may be liable for interests and damages
Debtor may bear the risk of loss of things, even if the loss is due to a fortuitous
event (1165) subject to equitable mitigation if the loss would transpire even if
there was no default on the part of the debtor
2. Mora Accipiendi default on the part of the creditor or obligee; when the
obligee unjustifiably refuses to accept payment or performance at the time the
obligation is due. If the refusal is justified such as when the payment given is
not that of what has been stipulated upon, there is no Mora Accipiendi.
Effects:
Obligation arising from a crime (delicto), culprit is liable for the loss of the
thing even if its loss of the subject of the crime was due to a fortuitous event,
unless the creditor is guilty of Mora Accipiendi. Obligee is barred from
recovering for damages from the culprit if there was mora accipiendi.
The refusal of lessors to accept current rentals without just cause makes them
shoulder the subsequent accidental loss of the leased premises. The default
incurred by the lessors was NOT cured by the failure of the lessee to consign
the rejected payments
3. Compensation Morae default on the part of both debtor/obligor and the
creditor/obligee which arises in reciprocal obligations. The effect is the default
of one party neutralizes the default of the other. Parties are both guilty of
mutual default. Their respective liabilities shall be offset equitably. When one
party does not fulfill, he releases the other from his obligations and does not
become delinquent in the fulfillment of his prestation.