MIDTERM

SECTION 2.- Obligations with a Period

ART. 1193. Obligations for whose fulfillment a day certain has been fixed, shall be demandable only
when that day comes.

Let say on or before December 31, 2022, the fulfillment would only be Dec. 31 2022 has come or
arrive, so that’s the obligation with a period.

Obligations with a resolutory period take effect at once, but terminate upon arrival of the day certain.

December 31 2022, and today is Oct 4 2022, so if will start at oct 4 2022 that on or before up to
Dec 31 2022. Starts at Oct 4 2022. It take effect at once and it will be terminated on Dec 31 2022
so that’s a resolutory period, but if it is suspensive period, on Dec 31 2023 so that’s a period
until next year of December 31 2023

A day certain is understood to be that which must necessarily come, although it may not be known
when.

If it’s a period, future or certain event and you have this 3 rd paragraph now must necessarily may
come. It will be certain that it will become. It cannot be prevented it would surely come. When
you say day certain. Although it may not be known when. Lets say holy Friday in 2024 , if you will
not consult calendar, you do not know what date and what day would that holy Friday in 2024
would fall but still that is a period because it would certainly arrive and it still covered by the
definition of a day certain.

If the uncertainty consists in whether the day will come or not, the obligation is conditional, and it shall
be regulated by the rules of the preceding section. (1125a)

If it is future or uncertain event it is a condition and if that future or uncertain event is an

obligation, we call it conditional obligation.

An obligation with a period is one whose effects or consequences are subjected in one way or another
to the expiration or arrival of said period or term.

Meaning of period or term.

A period is a future and certain event upon the arrival of which the obligation (or right) subject to it
either arises or is terminated. It is a day certain which must necessarily come (like the year 2010; next
Christmas), although it may not be known when, like the death of a person. (Art. 1193, par. 3.)

Period and condition distinguished.

The differences are as follows:

(1) As to fulfillment.-A period is a certain event which must happen sooner or later at a date known
beforehand, or at a time which cannot be determined, while a condition is an uncertain event;

(2) As to time. while a condition may refer also to a past event unknown to the parties; - A period refers
only to the future,

(3) As to influence on the obligation. A period merely fixes the time for the efficaciousness of the
obligation. If suspensive, it cannot prevent the birth of the obligation in due time; if resolutory, it does
not invalidate the fact that the obligation existed. On the other hand, a condition causes an obligation
either to arise or to cease;

(4) As to effect, when left to debtor's will. A period which depends upon the will of the debtor
empowers the court to fix the duration thereof (Art. 1197, par. 2.), while a condition which depends
upon the sole will of the debtor invalidates the obligation (Art. 1182.); and

(5) As to retroactivity of effects. Unless there is an agreement to the contrary, the arrival of a period
does not have any retroactive effect, while the happening of a condition has retroactive effect.

Like a condition (see Art. 1183.), a period must be possible. If the period is impossible (e.g., February 30
because it will never come; construction of a building within 24 hours because it is too short), the
obligation is void.

Kinds of period or term.

(1) According to effect:

(a) Suspensive period (ex die). The obligation begins only from a day certain upon the arrival of period
(Art. 1193, par. 1.); and

(b) Resolutory period (in diem). The obligation is valid up to a day certain and terminates upon arrival of
the period. (par. 2; 8 Manresa 160-162.)

EXAMPLES:

Ex die:

(1) "I will pay you 30 days from today" (or on Jan. 1, next year, or at the end of this month).

(2) "I will support you from the time your father dies." Here, the uncertainty consists not in whether the
day (death) will come or not, but only in the exact date or time of its taking place. (pars. 3 and 4, Art.
1193.)

(3) "I will pay you when my means permit me to do so." This is considered by law as an obligation with a
period. (Art. 1180.)

In diem:

(1) "I will give you P500 a month until the end of the year."

(2) "I will support you until you

(2) According to source:

die."

(a) Legal period. When. When it is provided for by laws;

(b) Conventional or voluntary period. - When it is

agreed to by the parties (Art. 1196.); and

(c) Judicial period. When it is fixed by the court. (Art. 1197.)

(3) According to definiteness

(a) Definite period. When it is fixed or it is known when it will come (Art. 1193, par. 3.); and

(b) Indefinite period. - When it is not fixed or it is not known when it will come. Where the period is not
fixed but a period is intended, the courts are usually empowered by law to fix the same. (see Art. 1197.)

ART. 1194. In case of loss, deterioration or improvement of the thing before the arrival of the day
certain, the rules in article 1189 shall be observed.

We have studied in our previous session the provision in case of loss, deterioration or
improvement of the thing. During the tendency of the happening of the condition. In obligation
with a period same rule will apply.
This contemplates a suspensive period, it could be the loss of the thing will be due to the fault of
the debtor, due to fortuitous event, without the fault of the debtor or it will be improve at the
expense of the debtor or by nature will be the reason why theres a improvement.
Effect of loss, deterioration, or improvement before arrival of period.

ART. 1195. Anything paid or delivered before the arrival of the period, the obligor being unaware of the
period or believing that the obligation has become due and demandable, may be recovered, with the
fruits, and interests.

Dec 31 2022, and the payment has already made, Oct 4 2022. So theres already payment before
the arrival of the period. The obligor or the debtor is unaware of the period. At the back of his
mind is he believe that the obligation is already due and demandable.
Does the creditor has the right to recover what he has deliver? Yes the law said may be
recovered with the fruits and interests.
Payment before arrival of period.

applies only to obligation to give. It is similar to Article 1188, paragraph 2, which allows the recovery of
what has been paid by mistake before the fulfillment of a suspensive condition.

The creditor cannot unjustly enrich himself by retaining the thing or money received before the arrival
of the period.

Debtor presumed aware of period.

The presumption, however, is that the debtor knew that the debt was not yet due. He has the burden of
proving that he was unaware of the period. Where the duration of the period depends upon the will of
the debtor (see Art. 1197, par. 3.), payment by him amounts, in effect, to his determination of the arrival
of the period.

The obligor may no longer recover the thing or money once the period has arrived but he can recover
the fruits or

Art. 1196. Whenever in an obligation a period is designated, it is presumed to have been established for
the benefit of both the creditor and the debtor unless from the tenor of the same or other
circumstances it should appear that the period has been established in favor of one or of the other.

The period as agreed upon by the parties for their benefit, for the benefit of the creditor and the
debtor, why? Let say payment in a contract of indebtedness, the debtor would know when he
would pay that if the debtor wasn’t able to pay on the period provided the creditor also know
what would be his requires. The creditor know when the debtor should pay. When there will be
interest that will be collected.
Period also on a contract of lease, you when will the contract of lease will start, and when will
be termination of the contract of lease shall occur.
The only exemption is when the tenor of the obligation states that it has been established in
favor of one of the parties, the debtor or the creditor or of the other party.

Art. 1197. If the obligation does not fix a period, but from its nature and the circumstances it can be
inferred that a period was intended, the courts may fix the duration thereof.

The agreement is really an obligation with a period, but in the agreement, there was failure to
provide the period. It was really intended by the parties; the courts may fix the duration thereof.
One of the parties may bring an action in court, asking the court to fix the period or the duration
of the obligation with a period.

The courts shall also fix the duration of the period when it depends upon the will of the debtor.

If the agreement is an agreement with a period that depends upon the will the debtor, the
creditor can go to the court, and ask the court to fix the period.
If the debtor doesn’t fulfill the obligation, and the creditor deems that the period is the right for
fixing because it depends upon the will of the debtor.

In every case, the courts shall determine such period as may under the circumstances have been
probably contemplated by the parties. Once fixed by the courts, the period cannot be changed by them.

It will base it on the intention of the parties, the circumstances, the contemplation by the
parties will be the basis of the court in fixing the period. Once its fix by the court that could no
longer be subject of change by the parties.
Art, 1198, The debtor shall lose every right to make use of the period:

1.) When after the obligation has been contracted, he becomes insolvent, unless he gives a
guaranty or security for the debt;
when you say insolvent, his assets is less than his liabilities, the debtor would be unable to pay
all his accreditors.
The creditor will not wait for the arrival of period anymore, when he could collect. He could
already act for the protection his self, by filing an action against the remaining properties or
filing a claim in liquidation of the assets and liabilities of the debtor.
That will not apply if the agreement is that he provide a security for the debt
Security- you borrow an amount, from a financial institution, a mortgage or a pledge, has been
constituted, a security for the debt where the creditor will run in the event the debtor failed to
pay.

2.) When he does not furnish to the creditor the guaranties or securities which he has promised;
When he does not furnish to the creditor the guaranties or the securities that she has promised,
there was failure on the part of the debtor to deliver the pledge or the mortgage fail to execute
Or failed to designate a guarantor (contract of guarantee, a third person contracts with the
creditor that in the event the principal debtor cannot pay, and after the creditor has exhausted
all the assets of the debtor, there’s still a balance, the creditor can now go to the guarantor, the
guarantor liability is secondary

3.) When by his own acts he has impaired said guaranties or securities after their establishment,
and when through fortuitous event they disappear; unless he immediately gives new ones
equally satisfactory;
The impairment was due to the fault of the debtor or disappear through fortuitous event
The debtor already lose his right to make use of the period unless there will be a substitute
guarantee or security equally satisfactory

4.) When the debtor violates any undertaking, in consideration of which the creditor agreed to the
period;
There’s already violation done by the debtor even it’s obligation with a period/suspensive
period, the debtor shall lose his right to make use of the period

5.) When the debtor attempts to abscond.

Say that it’s manifest/ obvious that his moving to far place because he wanted to avoid his
obligation, the creditor might already be of suspicion, might not be able to collect anymore

QNA

1. Has the debtor the right to recover what he has paid to the creditor before the arrival of the
period agreed upon? Explain.
 2. If an obligation does not state a period for its performance, has the party has the right to ask the
court to fix a period or the duration thereof? Explain.
3. Give the cases when the obligee can demand the performance of an obligation even before the
arrival of the period agreed upon,

Section 3

Alternative and Facultative Obligations

Art. 1199. A person alternatively bound by different prestation shall completely perform one of them.

There are 3 prestations: the agreement was worded, prestation 1 or prestation 2 or prestation
3 , and delivery or fulfillment of anyone of the obligation or prestation is already an
extinguishment of the obligation, need not deliver the other prestation.

The creditor cannot be compelled to receive part of one and part of the other undertaking.

Part of prestation 1 part of prestation 2 that couldn’t be, when it comes to alternative obligation

Art. 1200. The right of choice belongs to the debtor, unless it has been expressly granted to the creditor

The general rule is the right of choice pertains to the debtor

It would only be for the creditor if expressly agreed upon,
Assuming that in the prestations there are impossible or unlawful, that couldn’t be the choice of
the debtor, the purpose of the law is to prevent the debtor avoiding the obligation
What has to be chosen by the debtor are those obligations that can be delivered or fulfilled or
perform, that’s why

The debtor shall have no right to choose those prestations which are impossible, unlawful or which
could not have been the object of the obligation.

To deliver a determinate thing A

Or to deliver a determinate thing B
Or the 3rd prestation unlawful, that couldn’t be the choices of debtor, it should be on prestation
A or B

Art. 1201. The choice shall produce no effect except from the time it has been communicated.

In alternative obligation, the right of choice belong to the debtor and that choice shall become
effective when its conveyed or communicated to the creditor by the debtor
Art. 1202. The debtor shall lose the right of choice when among the prestations whereby he is
alternatively bound, only one is practicable.

Prestation 1 or 2 or 3 , but only one is practicable, its no longer an alternative obligation because
the right of choice does not exist anymore, the debtor shall lose the right of choice when among
the prestations whereby his alternatively bound only one is practicable.

Art. 1203 If through the creditor's acts the debtor cannot make a choice according to the terms of the
obligation, the latter may rescind the contract with damages.

Is there a right granted to the debtor if the alternative obligation cease to be (such?) by reason
of creditors acts? Yes the latter may rescind the contract with damages

Art. 1204, The creditor shall have a right to indemnity far damages when, through the faults of the
debtor, all the things which are alternatively the object of the obligation have been lost, or the
compliance of the obligation has become impossible.

The creditor shall have right to indemnity for damages if all the obligations by which the debtor
is alternatively bound or all the object of the obligation, the debtor is alternatively bound to
deliver or perform are cannot be perform, become impossible or loss
What will be the bases or value?

The indemnity shall be fived taking as a basis the value of the last thing which disappeared, or that of
the service which last became impossible.

Damages other than the value of the last thing or service may also be awarded.

Art. 1205 When the choices has been expressly given to the creditor, the obligation shall cease to be
alternatively from the day when the selection has been communicated to the debtor.

When the debtor already conveyed what prestation he chose from among the alternative
prestation the obligation cease to be, such an alternative obligation. Because the debtor already
know what to deliver by reason of communication from creditor, who has the right of choice if
expressly granted

Until then the responsibility of the debtor shall be governed by the following rules:

1. If one of the things is lost through a fortuitous event, he shall perform the obligation by
delivering that which the creditor should choose from among the remainder, or that which
remains if only one subsists;
Tatlo yung prestation, namili na si creditor, pero Nawala yung pinili ni creditor, puwedeng i-
perform pa ni debtor yung natitira na dalawa
 2. If the loss of one of the things occurs through the fault of the debtor, the creditor may claim any
of those subsisting. damages or the price of that which, through the fault of the former has
disappeared, with a right to

3. If all the things are lost through the fault of the debtor, the choice by the creditor shall fall upon the
price of any one of them, also with indemnity for damages.

The same rules shall be applied to obligations to do or not to do in case one, some or all of the
prestations should become impossible.

Facultative Obligations

Art. 1206. When only one prestation has been agreed upon, but the obligor may render another in
substitution, the obligation is called facultative.

The obligation is to deliver washing machine, the debtor has given the right to substitute in case
machine washing cannot be deliver, what’s to be deliver is another appliance

The loss or deterioration of the thing intended as a substitute, through the negligence of the obligor,
does not render him liable. But once the substitution has been made, the obligor is liable for the loss of
the substitute on account of his delay, negligence or fraud.

If there is deterioration or loss on the substitute through negligence of obligor, debtor/obligor

don’t have liability
But if there is substitution the obligor is liable for the loss of the substitute, on what ground?
Delay/negligence/fraud
BULAW MIDTERM 02

Joint and Solidary Obligations

Art. 1207. The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same
obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the
latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestations.

When it comes to joint and solidary obligations two or more debtors and two or more creditors
are presents or are the contracting parties.
That’s is why we have there the concurrence of two or more creditors or of more two or more
debtors in one at the same obligation
E.g., John and Peter borrowed money from the bank, so there are debtors and one creditor
which is the bank,
If the contract of loan or agreement states that they bind themselves to pay the money they
borrowed in their capacity as debtor their liability is joint
It would only be a solidary liability or there was statement/stipulation that John and Peter is
liability to the loan is solidary

There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law of the nature of
the obligation requires solidarity

In a contract of loan, a solidary obligation is expressly provided

What is joint and what is solidary obligation?
-in the illustration there are two debtors, if it’s a joint, they borrowed amount of 1million, one of
them is liable to pay the 500 thousand pesos and the other one is liable to pay 500 thousand
pesos
The creditor could only collect 500 thousand pesos from one of the joint debtors and another
500 thousand from one of the joint debtors,
However, if the obligation is solidary, the creditor can go against debtor 1 for the entire 1million
pesos in the example, Or can go against debtor 2 for the entire obligation
In a joint obligation base on the example, there could be credits/debts which are separate and
distinct from one another in the amount of 500 thousand each for the two joint debtor if the
obligation is joint,
Art. 1208. If from the law, or the nature or the wording of the obligation to which the preceding article
refers the contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many
equal shares as there are creditors or debtors, the credits or debts being considered distinct from one
another , subject to the Rules of Court governing the multiplicity of suits.

In the previous example, one creditor and two debtors, if there was no statement that the
obligation is solidary the credit/debt shall be presumed to be divided as to many equal shares as
there are creditors/debtors
In the obligation to pay 1million pesos, there are two debts, separate and distinct from each
other in the amount of 500 thousand pesos, it’s because there are two debtors and their liability
is joint

If from the law or the nature/wording of the obligation to which a preceding article refers the
contrary does not appeal,

E.g., say that in a contract of partnership, when there’s a misappropriation of a property of a

client by one of the partners and there were damages sustained in such use by one of the
properties of a customer or client, the partners have solidary liability with the partnership, when
the client will claim for damages on the property

example, the business of the partnership is laundry, the suit came for a dry wash, was use by
one of the partners in the party, during the party the suit was damage because of food stain,
resulting to cannot be cleaned anymore by dry washing, so there’s damage suffer by the suit,
under the law the liability is solidary, so far as the partners are concern with the partnership,

so, the provision of the law provide solidary liability or the nature /wording of the obligation,
there was an express provision of a solidary obligation
Art. 1209. if the division is impossible, the right of the creditors may be prejudiced only by their
collective acts, and the debt can be enforced only by proceeding against all the debtors. If one of the
latter should be insolvent, the others shall not be liable for his share.

What is being referred in this article is a joint indivisible obligation

The liability is joint, but the performance of the obligation is indivisible
E.g., delivery of a car by three joint debtors in the amount of 240 thousand pesos, joint
obligations in terms of liability but the performance or delivery is indivisible to deliver a specific
brand new car,
How well the performance be in so far as the three joint debtors are concern?
-according to the law the right of the creditors may be prejudice only by their collective act, if
one joint debtor cannot comply with his share in distribution/delivery of the brand new specific
car, the others cannot be made to answer, say that joint debtor 1, 2 cannot be made to answer
for the share of that joint debtor 3 in a joint indivisible obligation.

It is indivisible because, the specific brand new car or the subject matter cannot be physically
divisible for purposes of delivery.
Again, the liability is joint, but as to compliance in the example is indivisible
And the debt can be enforced by preceding against all the debtors, if one cannot comply or
insolvent the others cannot be compelled in view of the nature of their obligation which is joint
obligation,
The debtor can collect the value 1,240,000, the 2/3 value can be collected to the two joint
debtor and the other one shall remain as obligation of the other joint debtor,
The obligee recourse now as to damages and value of the thing to be delivered

Art. 1210. The indivisibility of an obligation does not necessarily give rise to solidarity.

the obligation in the previous example is an indivisible obligation, but that doesn’t mean that if
it’s an indivisible obligation it would already be a solidary obligation, it give rise to solidarity
what will matter is the agreement whether its joint or solidary
that what is meant by the indivisibility of an obligation does not necessarily give rise to solidarity
in the previous example, three joint debtors, their obligation is to deliver a specific brand new
car so it’s an indivisible obligation, but there is joint liability.

Nor does solidarity of itself imply indivisibility

say in that obligation, there are three joint debtors, assuming that at the level of the creditor,
it’s a solidary creditor, there are two creditors, to exemplify Nor does solidarity of itself imply
indivisibility even it’s solidary obligation in so far as the creditors are concern, the debtors
obligation may still be divisible obligation
what matters is the agreement is a solidary obligation, if it’s not expressly provided the law
presumed that it’s a joint obligation
Art. 1211. Solidarity may exist although the creditors and the debtors may not be bound in the same
manner and by the same periods and conditions.

Say that solidary obligation on the part of the debtor, but the period within which they should
comply with the obligations are different periods or subject to a different conditions, under the
law solidarity may still exist, even the creditor and the debtor are covered by different periods
and conditions

Art. 1212. Each one of the solidary creditors may do whatever may be useful to the others, but not
anything which may be prejudicial to the latter.

There are two solidary debtors, and there are two solidary creditors, if one of the solidary
creditors will collect the entire obligation from solidary debtor 1, that’s beneficial/useful to the
other solidary creditor because if the entire obligation is collected, the solidary creditor is bound
to remit the share of the other solidary creditor,
solidary creditor 1 solidary creditor 2, assume that solidary creditor 1 has collected the entire
obligation, its an obligation on the part of solidary creditor 1 whose collected the entire
obligation to remit the share of solidary creditor 2,
what’s an illustration of prejudicial?
-solidary creditor 1 donated or remise or condone the entire obligation, by that would be
prejudicial to the interest of solidary creditor 2,
Is there any obligation of solidary creditor 1 to solidary creditor 2 if there was condonation or
remission of the debt in favor of solidary debtor?
- Yes, that share pertaining to solidary creditor 2 shall be paid or shall be answer by solidary
creditor 1

Art. 1213. A solidary creditor cannot assign his rights without the consent of the others

Joint solidary debtor 1 and 2 is stand to be corrected a while ago,

And then solidary creditor 1 and 2, solidary creditor 2 would like to transfer his credits in favor
of another person, the law requires that, that could not be done without consent of solidary
creditor 1, it’s because when there will be assignment there will be a new solidary creditor, a
solidary creditor with solidary creditor 1, and that might bring about conflict between solidary
creditor 1 and the new solidary creditor 2. That’s the rationale of the law
Why? A solidary creditor cannot assign his rights without the consent of the other solidary
creditor
Art. 1214. The debtor may pay any one of the solidary creditors; but if any demand. judicial or
extrajudicial, has been made by one of them, payment should be made to him.

Solidary creditor 1, solidary creditor 2. Solidary creditor 1 already demanded payment of the
entire obligation, when the debtor wanted to pay the payment was made to solidary creditor.
Under the law the debtor should pay the solidary creditor who has already made a demand
judicial or extrajudicial demand
Extrajudicial- outside court processes or procedures
for instance, the creditor sent a letter demanding now the payment
Judicial- action in court
The court directing a party to pay now or on specific date

To whom the payment should be made? To the solidary creditors already paid, was already
demanded the payment, judicial or extrajudicial demand

Art. 1215. Novation, compensation, confusion or remission of the debt, made by any of the solidary
creditors or with any of the solidary debtors shall extinguish the obligation, without prejudice to the
provisions of Article 1219.

What’s article 1219? The remission made by the creditor of the share which of one of the
solidary debtor does not release the latter from his responsibility towards the co-debtor in case
the debt have been totally paid by any one of them before the remission was lifted.
Illustration; Novation, compensation, confusion or remission of the debt are modes to
extinguish the obligation
If a solidary creditor has remitted or condone the debt in favor of solidary debtors, that will
extinguish the obligation,
Say that the solidary debtor, the entire obligation, he donated or he is no longer asking for
payment, or he condone the debt, shall extinguish the obligation
But, if there is any condonation or remission of the debt, but there is solidary debtor that
already paid on the other solidary creditor, this means the article 1219.

Yung nakapagbayad na ay puwede pa rin siyang magpa-reimburse doon sa solidary debtor na

nakakuha ng condonation of the debt

The creditors who may have executed any of these acts, as well as he who collects the debt, shall be
liable to the others for the share in the obligation corresponding to them.

Say that solidary creditor kinondone niya yung indebtedness or yung pagkakautang, si solidary
creditor na nagkondone mayroon siyang obligation,
Shall be liable to the others for the share in the obligation corresponding to them.
Si solidary creditor 1 na nagkondone nung debt is bound to answer the share of the other
solidary creditor, shall be liable to the other solidary creditor for the share in the obligation
Art. 1219. The remission made by the creditor of the share which affects one of the solidary debtors does not release the latter
from his responsibility towards the co debtors, in case the debt had been totally paid by anyone of them before the remission
was effect