Article 1241

March 25, 2016

Payment to a person who is incapacitated to admnister his property shall be valid
if he has kept the thing delivered, or insofar as the payment has been beneficial
to him.

Payment made to a third person shall also be valid insofar as it has redounded to
the benefit of the creditor.  Such benefit to the creditor need not be proved in the
following cases:

1.) If after the payment, the third person acquires the creditor’s rights;

2.) If the creditor ratifies the payment to the third person;

3.) If by the creditor’s conduct, the debtor has been led to believe that the third
person had authority to receive the payment. (1163a)

Ang kabayaran sa isang taong walang kakayahang pangasiwaan ang kanyang ari-arian
ay balido kapag nabigay nya ang bagay na hinihingi sa kanya, o hangga’t ang
kabayaran ay naging benepisyal sa kanya.

Ang kabayarang ibinigay sa ikatlong tao ay balido hangga’t ang naging bunga nito ay
benepisyal sa inutangan.  Ang benepisyong tinutuloy ay kinakailangang patunayan ng
mga sumusunod:

1.) Kung pagkatapos ng kabayaran, ang pangatlong tao ay nakuha ang karapatan ng
pinakautangan;

2.) Kung ni-ratify ng pinagkautangan ang kabayaran para sa pangatlong tao;

3.) Kung sa inaasal ng pinagkautangan, napaniwala niya ang may utang na ang
pangatlong tao ang may kapangyarihang tanggapin ang kabayaran.

Discussion:

Artile 1241 applies to payments made by the debtor with the intention to extinguish his
debts.  The rationale behind this article is that, since the creditor is incapacitated and
cannot administer his own property, the creditor needs a legal representative or a
guardian to receive the payment.  If there is none, the debtor may consign the thing in
court so that he will be released from the obligation.

Moreover, Article 1241 is an exception to the rule made by Article 1240 that states
“Payment shall be made to teh person in whose favor the obligation has been
constituted, or his successor in interest, or any prson authorized to receive it.”  Payment
to a third person may still be valid as long the creditor is being benefited.  Therefore, the
validity of the payment is co-extensive to the benefit the creditor receives.
Nevertheless, this benefits require evidence to establish the extent it was enjoyed.

Case Illustration: Panganiban vs. Cuevas (7 Phil. 477)