NAPOCOR VS MANGUDATU

I: WHETHER NAPOCOR HELD SOLIDARY LIABLE WITH MANGUDATU

SC: NO. Napocor payment to mangudatu was made in compliance with lawful order of the court. The
payment made may be considered to have extinguish its obligation regardless of who b/w Mangudatu
and Ebrahem turns out to be the real owner of the property. ( ART. 1242 – X to the rule that valid
paymentof obligation can only be made to a person to whom such obligation is rightfully owed).

PLACE OF PAYMENT

P: AVAILMENT OF CONSIGNATION IN ORDER TO EXTINGUISH THE OBLIGATION

 DOMICILE OF THE DEBTOR

TN: PRIOR TO CONSIGNATION , A VALID TENDER OF PAYMENT IS NECESSARY.

BUNROSTRO VS LUNA

 Entered into contract to sell ( LUNA AND BUNROSTRO)

 PP to be paid by instalment
 Bunrostro is willing to pay the total balance due to Luna and sent a letter expressing their desire
to pay but no reply from Luna

ISSUE: W/N THE MERE SENDING OF LETTER CONSTITUTE A valid tender of payment to toll the running of
the interest of the balance.

SC: NO. When a tender a of payment is not accompanied by means of payment and the debtor did not
take immediate step to make a consignation then the interest is not suspended from the time of such
tender. Here, the letter was not accompanied by payment and their claim that they were ready to pay
but not followed by consignation. Thus, the interest was not suspended and they were liable to pay the
same until full payment.

PNB VS LILIBETH CHAN

ISSUE:

1.) W/N THE PNB MADE THE PROPER CONSIGNATION OF THE RENTAL FEES AND WHETHER IT
HAD THE EFFECT OF PAYMENT

2.) WHETHER PNB IS LIABLE FOR INTEREST ON THE RENTALS IN ARREARS

SC:

1.) NO. PNB did not make the proper consignation. PNB’S deposit of the subject monthly rentals in
the non-drawing savings account of chua , it is not the consignation contemplated by law
because it does place the same at the disposal of the court. ( CONSIGNATION IS NECESSARILY
JUDICIAL, IT IS NOT ALLOWED IN VENUES OTHER THAN THE COURTS)

2.) YES, when PNB’S obligation to pay rent for the period 2005 – 2006 remains subsisting and as
such they shall be liable for the payment of interest of rental on arrears.

NOTICE REQ BEFORE AND AFTER CONSIGNATION IS MADE BY THE DEBTOR

EFFECT: If the court finds that the consignation was properly made, the debtor may be held liable for
the cost of the suit

LOSS OF THE THING DUE TO EXTINGUISH THE OBLIGATION

 The thing must be specific

 The cause of the loss must be due entirely to a FE
 NO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE BY THE DEBTOR
 No delay or fraud incurred by the debtor
 The debt must not proceed from criminal offense
 The must not have promise to deliver the same thing to 2or more persons who do not have the
same interest
 There must be no assumption of risk
 There must be no provision of law making the debtor liable even in FE

ART. 1266 AND 1267 – ONLY APPLIES TO OBLIGATIONS TO DO

COMGLASSCO CORP VS SANTOS CAR CHECK CENTER

ISSUE: W/N THE UNFORESEEN EVENTS ARE THE LEGAL OR PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES
CONTEMPLATED UNDER 1266 AND 1267

SC: NO. The obligation to pay rentals or deliver a thing in a contract of lease falls within the prestation
to give thus it does not involved an obligation to do. Here , the comglassco cannot be permitted to
blame its regional difficulties on the said crisis because it entered to contract more then 3 years after it
begun. Comglassco had known what business risk it assumed.

TN: Mere pecuniary inability to fulfill an engagement does not discharge a contractual obligation nor
does it constitute a defense to an action for specific performance.
DOCTRINE OF UNFORESEEN EVENT S IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF REBUS
SIC INSTATIBUS which would endanger the security of contractual realation . Thus, the parties to the
contract must be presumed to have assumed the risk of unfavourable development.

TAGAYTAY REALTY VS GAKUTAN

ISSUE: W/N THE TR WAS RELIEVED FROM ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLI TO COMPLETE THE AMENITIES

SC: NO. In order for 1267 to apply , the following req must be concurred:

CONDONATION

 FORMALITIES MUST COMPLIED UNDER ART. 748 AND 749

 EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
 IT MAY REFER TO PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY

CONFUSION OR MERGER

 THE MERGER MUST BE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE DEBTOR AND THE CREDITOR

COMPENSATION

 LEGAL - IT ARISES BY OPERATION OF LAW UPON THE CONCURRENCE OF ALL THE REQ
MENTIONED UNDER ART 1279 ( CONSENT IS NOT NECESSARY)

 CONVENTIONAL - IT IS AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES ( THE DEBTS NOT YET BE DUE MAY BE
SUBJECT TO OFFSET UNDER ART. 1282)