COPRADE, JAKE ROGER B.

1ST YEAR BLOCK C

ASSESSMENT: WEEK 1 AND 2 (ANSWERS)

I.
Q’s contention in his appeal is correct. The obligation expressly states that it is a solidary
obligation though the word “solidary” was not used, the phrase “jointly and severally”was, and
this can also be understood to have defined the character of the obligation as solidary. Since it
is expressly stated, it is pursuant to the provisions of Article 1207 of the New Civil Code. In a
solidary obligation, each of the creditors has a right to demand, and each of the debtors is
liable for the payment of the entire debt. In addition, Article 1212 provides that each one of the
creditors may dot whatever may be useful to the others, but not anything that may prejudice to
the latter. This means that Q may act and proceed by himself for the collection of the entire
obligation of Php500,000 balance plus charges and interests against spouses C and D without
having B as a co-plaintiff. In fact, it doesn’t matter who between Q and B files the complaint
since the spouses C and D are liable to either of the two solidary creditor for the full amount of
the debt. Q may claim full amount and B may later claim his share thereof.

II.
Yes and no, the bank is correct as far as the question whether legal compensation may be
applied in the situation or not. As provided for in Article 1279 of the New Civil Code, since both
are bound principally and at the same time principal creditor of the other, both debts consist in
sum of money, both debts are due, both debts are liquidated and demandable, and no third
person involved, they satisfy the requisites for legal compensation to be proper but only to the
amount unpaid and have prescribed, to wit, the 5th, 6th and 7th month. The bank is however
incorrect in the claiming that the whole obligation is due since the remaining months up to the
12th has not yet matured. They can only apply legal compensation for the 3 months that are
unpaid and must wait for the remaining balance to be due for the bank to demand the same.

III.
No, AB Construction’s obligation to CD Industries was not extinguished. Although it is true that
novation through substituting debtors are valid to extinguish obligations, either through
substitution by expromision or delegacion, in this case the latter, it must first satisfy certain
requisites to be valid. Given that AB Construction is the one who initiated the substitution, it is
now presumed to be substitution by delegacion. Requisites for such substitution to be valid
includes: 1. Initiative for the substitution must emanate from the old debtor; 2. Consent of the
new debtor; and 3. Acceptance or consent by the creditor. Requisites 1 and 2 were fulfilled in
the case provided but requisite 3 cannot be impliedly presumed. The mere act of the creditor in
accepting payments by a third party for the benefit of the debtor whose accounts the third
party has assumed, without further facts, does not constitute an implied acceptance of the
substitution of the debtor and does not relieve the old debtor of his obligations to pay the
unpaid balance of the debt.

IV.
Yes, as provided for by Article 1311 of the New Civil Code, contracts take effect only between
the parties, their assigns and heirs. In addition it also provides that, in case of a third person,
the contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately conferred a favor upon the third
person. The contract between B and the telephone company is exclusive to them and
presumably based from the facts does not include a third person. Hence, the obligation to fulfill
the obligation is with B. The contract of lease between A and B was between them alone hence
the obligation of A can be demanded only by B and not by the telephone company.