MORA SOLVENDI AEROSPACE CHEM INDUSTRIES V
CA
Requisites:
i. Obligation requires a positive act or
prestation of the debtor
ii. That the obligation should be
demandable(no mora in natural
obligations), due, and
liquidated(amount is ascertained)
iii. Debtor delays performance either
because of dolo or culpa
iv. The creditor demands the
performance either judicially or
extra-judicially
CETUS DEVT CORP v CA
 Respondent, who are lessees of the land
owned by Petitioner Cetus, incurred
arrears as no collector came for their
rentals from July-September. Upon
demand, they paid back rentals
promptly.
 Ejectment suit – unlawful detainer
HELD: no cause of action for unlawful
detainer: month-to-month basis of
payment not alleged so necessity of demand
applies (ART 1169); proof of demand 
creditor; no mora solvendi: upon demand
of arrearage, lessees immediately paid
VASQUEZ v AYALA
 Petitioner bought 500MT of sulfuric acid
from respondent; The former has to pay
5 days before shipment and arranged for
transport; Respondent set 2k for every
day of delay for storage of the ordered
goods
 Petitioner hires SK for the transport of
goods; the latter was able to deli failed in
the delivery (tilted); asks replacement for
sunken goods; Respondent demands
transport of those left or pay for storage
and rejects additional order  breach of
contract (damages)
HELD: Sinking of ship is not force
majeure: ship’s instability and
unseaworthiness; Exception to the rule:
Good’s remain at the seller’s risk until
ownership is transferred. Not applied in the
case because of buyer’s delay in the
performance of his obligation.
SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA v
SANTOS
 Compromise agreement: 1.5m upon
execution and 13m w/in 2 years
 Upon lapse of 2 years, Santos sent a letter
but got no reply resulting to the
execution of SVHFI’s real properties;
prayed for legal interest due to delay
HELD: There is mora solvendi: 3 his power to perform.
requisites are present. 1) 2 yr lapsed so
demandable 2) obligation was settled 1995
(1992 dapat) 3) letter sent on 1992
constitutes demand
 MOA: Ayala was to develop property into
a 1st class subdv; 1st phase in 3yrs (Pet.
Sps to sell shares to Ayala; Ayala to offer
purchase of developed lots to sps)
 Sps sent “reminder” letters during 1st 3
years and sent demand only towards the
end (1984, MOA-1981)
 Ayala completed proj in 1990; Sps want
to purchase using 1984 prices because
Ayala was in delay
HELD: No mora solvendi: no day certain
fixed; should have let the courts fixed (Art
1197); No demand was made: letters sent
only articulated their desire to exercise their
option
Exceptions (Art 1169):
a. When the obligation or the law
expressly so declares
Mere setting of due date is not
enough. There must be an express
stipulation to the following effect:
“Non-performance on that day is
delay without need of demand.”
b. When it appears from the nature and
circumstances of the obligation that
time is of the essence; time was a
controlling motive for the
establishment of the contract.
c. When demand would be useless,
when obligor has rendered it beyond
d. In reciprocal obligations where delay
only begins from the moment the
other party fulfills his obligation
(here, demand alone is not sufficient)
 ABELLA v FRANCISCO
 Francisco was in arrears on the payment
of lots purchased from the govt (due on
Dec 1928); sold a parcel of land to pet.
due on same date but the latter was only
able to pay partial amt; Asked for
rescission
 Abella filed suit to compel performance
HELD: There is mora solvendi: Time is of
the essence in this case as the due date was
set so that Francisco may be able to meet his
obligations.
DELA CRUZ v LEGASPI &
SAMPEROY
 Sps asks for annulment of the doc of sale
to Dela Cruz as the latter failed to pay
consideration (Php450) promptly upon
execution of said doc
HELD: Sale is valid: subsequent non-
payment did not render contract w/o
consideration – nudum pactum; There is
mora solvendi: Failure to pay not ipso
facto resolution (no stipulation to that
effect); even so, there was no demand – thus
no delay can occur.
MORA ACCIPIENDI
Requisites
i. That the obligation should require an
act of cooperation of the creditor for its
fulfillment
ii. That the debtor has all that is
incumbent upon him and has made
tender of performance or payment
iii. The creditor refuses to accept payment
or fails to carry out the act incumbent
upon him
VDA. DE VILLARUEL v MANILA
MOTOR CO
 Villaruel leased 3 properties to the resp.
(term: 5 yrs); Lease interrupted after 1 yr
by Jap occupation (resp. ousted from
premises)
 MMCo. renewed the lease after but after
a few mos, pet. suddenly refused rentals
and insisted payment for rentals during
Jap occupation; MMCo. refused.
 There was a fire and destruction. – Pet.
asks for reimbursement
HELD: NOT liable to pay for rentals
during Jap: not mere act of trespass but
already dispossession; There is mora
accipiendi: refusal to accept rentals w/o
qualification placed them in default; one who
is in default is responsible for supervening
risks of injury or destruction to the premises.
COMPENSATIO MORAE
CENTRAL BANK v CA
 Tolentino obtained a loan from Island
Savings Bank but only got partial release
(17k) w/ him signing a promissory note
for the same
 Monetary Board found ISB bankrupt and
prohibited to do business; failed to
release the balance for Tolentino’s loan
but still executed mortgage of his
property upon default of payment of the
17k; Tolentino countered such and asked
for specific performance since ISB failed
to deliver the whole loan
HELD: Rescission is the only rememdy
left: Art 1191 gives Tolentino a choice bet
fulfillment or rescission upon ISB’s default.
However, ISB’s prohibition renders
fulfillment impossible. BUT since he failed
to pay 17k w/in 3 yrs, he is not entitled to
rescission. BOTH parties committed
breach: Art 1192 applies.
 EFFECTS OF MORA
DEBTOR:
1. In Obligations to give
a. The debtor must
indemnify the creditor for
damages due to delay
b. The debtor must answer
for loss or deterioration of
the thing due, even if due
to fortuitous event (unless
proven that even without
delay, the loss would have
happened)
2. In Obligations to do
a. The debtor must
indemnify the creditor for
resulting damages
b. Creditor may hire another
at the expense of the
debtor
CREDITOR:
1. It excludes mora of the debtor
and destroys the effect of the
latter
2. Transfers the risk of accidental
loss or deterioration to the
creditor
3. But debtor’s obligation to
perform is not extinguished
unless he makes consignation
CONTRAVENTION OF THE TENOR
CHAVEZ v GONZALES
 Chavez is filing for damages against
Gonzales for the cost of having the
typewriter he brought him fixed by
someone else; Chavez brought it to him
first but the latter not only did not finish
the job (cleaning and service) but also
returned it to him dismantled w/ missing
parts
HELD: Breach of contract: no need for
courts to fix a period; Gonzales breached by
failing to do his job; Returning it
dismantled is contravention of the
tenor: Gonzales is therefore liable for labor
+ missing parts.
TELEFAST v CASTRO
 Castro filed a complaint for breach of
contract against Telefast for failure to
deliver the telegram she sent to her father
in the US; Telefast argued that it was
because of "technical and atmospheric
factors beyond its control."
HELD: Contravention of the tenor: is
any act w/c impairs fulfillment of the
obligation. Failure to send the telegram,
despite Sofia’s payment, gives rise to
damages; Moral damages: anguish -
unable to pay respects to his/their
wife/mother
ARRIETA v NARIC
 NARIC conducted a bidding for the
procurement of Burmese rice and Arrieta
was awarded the contract; NARIC was
unable to supply the letter of credit that
he’s supposed to supply so Arrieta was
not able to procure the Burmese Rice;
The latter offered Thai Rice instead
 NARIC rejected the offer and contended
that such constitutes a waiver to the orig
contract
HELD: Assumption of contractual
obligations despite financial
incapacity to perform such is
contravention of the tenor: impairs
strict fulfillment of the obligation  NARIC
is liable; Waiver must be unequivocal:
not presumed but “must be clearly and
convincingly shown, either by express
stipulation or acts admitting no other
reasonable explanation.”
VICTORIANO MAGAT v MEDIALDEA
 Plaintiff is suing for damages since he
believed that resp. entered into a contract
w/o intention of fulfilling it; Parties
entered into a contract of sale for radio
transceivers for the resp. taxicabs
 Resp. failed to open letter of credit in line
w/ the sale but Magat found out his
taxicabs were already operating w/o the
contracted transceivers
HELD: There is a cause of action: 1)
there is a right 2) a correlative duty and 3) act
or omission in violation of such;
Contravention of the tenor