NATURE AND EFFECTS OF OBLIGATION - CASES for ARTS.

1165 - 1178

1. OBLIGATION TO GIVE A DETERMINATE THING vs. A GENERIC THING:

ARTS. 1165

Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. vs Insurance Company of North America, G.R. NO. 147839,
June 8, 2006

2. LEGAL DELAY - ART. 1169

o Telefast vs. Castro, G.R. NO. 73867, February 29, 1988

Gen. Rule: Demand is Necessary for legal effects of delay or default to arise
o Compania General v. Araza, 7 Phil. 455
o Bayla v. Silang Traffic Co., 73 Phil. 455
o Manalac v. Garcia, 76 Phil. 216

Exception: When Demand is Not Necessary

o De la Rosa v. Bank of P.I. 51 Phil 926
o Rodriguez v. Belgica, 111 Phil 200
o Abella v. Francisco, 55 Phil. 447
o Hanlon v. Hausserman, 40 Phil. 796
o Rodrigo Rivera vs. Spouses Salvador Chua, G.R. Nos. 184458/184472. January
14, 2015 (1169)

Mora Solvendi

o Pantaleon vs. American Express G.R. No. 174269, May 8 2009

o Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, inc., vs. Santos, G.R. NO. 153004, November
5, 2004

Mora Accipiendi

o Manuel vs. CA, G.R. No. 95469 July 25, 1991

o Vda. de Villaruel v. Manila Motor Co., Inc. 104 Phil. 926

Compensatio Morae

o Cortes vs. CA, G.R. No. 126083, July 12, 2006

o Price Stabilization Inc. v. Relloraza et al., 97 Phil. 153

3. GROUNDS FOR LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES IN PERFORMANCE OF OBLIGATION :

ARTS. 1170 – 1173

Negligence ; Degree of Diligence Required

o Sicam vs. Jorge, G.R. NO. 159617, August 8, 2007

1
 o Meralco vs. Ramoy, G.R. NO. 158911, March 4, 2008

4. CONCEPT & LEGAL EFFECTS OF FORTUITOUS EVENT: ARTS. 1174

Fortuitous Event; Effect of Fault on Liability of obligor

o Nakpil & Sons v. CA, G.R. NO. L-47851 April 15, 1988
o Asset Privatization Trust vs. T.J. Enterprise G.R. No. 167195 May 8, 2009

5. USURIOUS TRANSACTIONS : ARTS. 1175

o Liam Law v. Olympic Sawmill Co. 129 SCRA 439.
o Angel Jose Warehousing Co., Inc. v. Chelda Enterprises and David Syjuco, L-25704,
April 24, 1968 -
o Medel et al v. CA 299 SCRA 481;
o Castro v. Tan, 605 SCRA 231
o Macalinao v. BPI, G.R. No. 175490, 600 SCRA 33
o Andal v. PNB, 711 SCRA 15

(Note also how the Supreme Court ruled on the controversy or issue - of creditor
imposing exorbitant interests where debtors/parties agreed thereto in a contract, and
how this affects the application of the laws on Art. 1305 – mutuality of contracts, and Art.
1315 – obligatory force of contracts.)

6. PRESUMPTIONS THAT INTEREST, OR PRIOR INSTALLMENTS HAD BEEN PAID:

ARTS. 1176
o Hill v. Veloso, 31 Phil. 160
o Perez v. Garcia, 7 Phil. 162
o Manila Trading & Supply Co., vs. Mariano Medina, G.R. No. L-16477, May 31,1961