-NO
What is the status of a potestative condition?
-the potestative condition will only be void if it depends solely upon the debtor alone because it will render the obligation nugatory
-If the potestative condition depends upon the will of the creditor, it is valid, because between the two parties, the creditor is the most interested in the performance of the obligation.
A potestative condition is one, which depends upon the will of one of the contracting parties.
A casual condition is one, which depends exclusively upon chance or other factors and not upon the will of the contracting parties.
A mixed condition is one, which depends upon the will of one of the contracting parties and other circumstances, including the will of a third person.
When it comes to period, there is a different rule.
Even if the period is dependent upon the will of the debtor alone, obligation is still valid, only that the court becomes empowered to fix the duration of the period.
Article 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 courts shall also fix the duration of the period when 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.
When are courts empowered to fix the duration of the period?
The court does not have the power to determine whether there is a period or not. Period and duration are not the same, it is given that the obligation has a period. 2 Instances:
1. If the parties to an obligation have agreed on a period but they failed to stipulate on the duration of the period.
2. If an obligation is subject to a suspensive period but dependent solely on the will of the debtor.
Both instances, there is a period, what is not known is the duration of the period How should the court fix the duration of the period?
The Court cannot fix a period merely because in its opinion it is or should be reasonable, but must set the time that the parties are shown to have intended.
-What is in the mind of the court to be reasonable is not material, it should not be the basis in fixing the duration of the period.
-The basis should be what the parties contemplated
After the court shall have fixed the duration of the period, can it be changed? By them? Who is them?
-them means the COURT
-the Court cannot change it because once the duration of period has been fixed, it becomes part and parcel of the contract.
How about the parties?
-Yes, provided that change was not made unilaterally -As long as it was made mutually
What will then be the effect?
-It will novate the period fixed by the Court.
When an obligation subject to a period or condition, it can happen that an obligation becomes immediately demandable
GO BACK TO ENUMERATION OF Immediately Demandable Obligations Nos. 2 & 3 Obligations subject to a resolutory condition or period.
The moment it is fulfilled, the obligation is extinguished. Effects.
Article 1190. When the conditions have for their purpose the extinguishment of
an obligation to give, the parties, upon the fulfillment of said conditions, shall return to each other what they have received.
In case of the loss, deterioration or improvement of the things, the provisions, which, with respect to the debtor, are laid down in the preceding article, shall be applied to the party who is bound to return.
As for obligations to do and not to do, the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 1187 shall be observed as regards the effect of the extinguishment of the obligation.
But this should be understood to include also the rights of the creditor. The creditor acquires all the rights of ownership.
1. Jus Utendi (the right to use)
2. Jus Fuendi (the right to enjoy the fruits) 3. Jus Disponendi (the right to dispose) 4. Jus Abutendi (the right to abuse) 5. Jus Vindicandi (the right to recover) 6. Jus Possidendi (the right to possess) Pending such return, subject to Article 1189.
Article 1189. When the conditions have been imposed with the intention of
suspending the efficacy of an obligation to give, the following rules shall be observed in case of the improvement, loss or deterioration of the thing during the pendency of
the condition:
1. If the thing is lost without the fault of the debtor, the obligation shall be extinguished;
2. If the thing is lost through the fault of the debtor, he shall be obliged to pay damages; it is understood that the thing is lost when it perishes, or goes out of commerce, or disappears in such a way that its existence is unknown or it cannot be recovered;
3. When the thing deteriorates without the fault of the debtor, the impairment is to be borne by the creditor;
4. If it deteriorates through the fault of the debtor, the creditor may choose between the rescission of the obligation and its fulfillment, with indemnity for damages in either case;
5. If the thing is improved by its nature, or by time, the improvement shall inure to the benefit of the creditor;
6. If it is improved at the expense of the debtor, he shall have no other right than that granted to the usufructuary.
Should it happen that the creditor loses not only his right to the obligation but also the ownership of the object, he is obliged to return the object.
No. 4 Obligations subject to a negative impossible or illegal condition.
No. 5 Obligations subject to a suspensive period but the debtor lose the right to make use of the period.
The obligation subject to a suspensive period here is automatically converted into a pure obligation, thus, making it immediately demandable.
Joint and Solidary
Can there be solidary obligation with only 1 debtor and 1 creditor? -NEVER
-For it to exist, there must always be plurality of parties, and this may exist under the debtor’s side or the creditor’s side or on both sides.
--- in order that an obligation may become solidary? (missing part) -No
-The law does not require for an obligation to become solidary that the name be used, as long as the --- --- solidary
Joint & Solidary Solidarily
In solidium
-As long as what is intended is solidarity.
Ernesto Ronquillo v. Court of Appeals (1984)
In this case, a creditor brought an action against 4 persons, against 4 different defendants, 1 of whom was Ronquillo.
Action for a sum of money, a collection suit.
Sum of money which the Plaintiff was seeking from the 3 defendants
Before the case was decided, the parties entered into a compromise agreement Condition:
1. Plaintiff agreed to reduce his claim to 110,000 pesos, from 117,000 pesos, condoning the 17,000 pesos.
2. The 4 defendants shall pay 50% of the 110,000 pesos on the day specified in the compromise agreement. The balance of 50% specified in the compromise agreement shall also be paid.
3. For all obligations above mentioned, we--- hereby bind ourselves to the Plaintiff, jointly and individually. ---signed.
The Compromise Agreement was presented in court, basis of judgment -no payment was made
-none of the 2 installments were paid
Plaintiff immediately sought a judgment based on the Compromise Agreement Plaintiff asked the 3 defendants to be solidarily liable
Ronquillo, manifested to the court that he was willing to pay his share in the obligation -According to him, they bound themselves jointly but not solidarily
What is the meaning of jointly and individually; does it connote joint obligation or solidary?
SC:
This is issue is not new because we have ruled on this in a prior case Parot vs. Gemora -juntos or separadamente
-parties bind themselves Jointly & Individually
We ruled that Jointly & Individually, this should be understood to be solidary Interpretation to be given, it means SOLIDARY
In Solidary Obligations, solidarity can exist in the following: 1. ACTIVE SOLIDARITY- on the creditor’s side
2. PASSIVE SOLIDARITY- on the debtor’s side 3. MIXED SOLIDARITY- on both sides
In Active Solidarity, the law says, anyone of the solidary creditors can demand payment from any solidary debtor.
In Passive Solidarity, the law says, anyone of the solidary debtor can pay the entire obligation to any solidary creditor.
07 February 2012 PM What is the basis of the provision of the law?
Why is each and every one given the right to demand payment from any solidary debtor?
-Because the PRINCIPLE of MUTUAL AGENCY governs the relationship existing among solidary creditors
Mutual Agency- means that whenever anyone of the solidary creditor acts, said creditor acts not only on his own behalf, but also in behalf of the other solidary creditors.
-each creditor is an agent of each other
in Passive Solidarity, each and every debtor can be compelled to pay the entire obligation
Mutual Guarantee- means that each solidary debtor guarantees payment for the other solidary debtors.
So that…
When anyone of the solidary creditor demands fulfillment to any solidary debtor, the debtor who receives the demand can only pay to the demanding creditor.
Should a solidary debtor pay to a solidary creditor who did not demand, payment is considered paid to a third person, that solidary debtor can be compelled to repeat such payment.
Solidary Obligations are never presumed.
Solidarity is never presumed. (Juliet) Only Joint Obligation, WHY? -Because in solidarity,
if it exists on the creditor’s side, the law grants in each solidary creditor tremendous power because anyone of them can demand full payment.
If it exist on the debtor’s side, the law imposes in each solidary debtor
tremendous burden because anyone can be compelled to pay the entire obligation. It is because of these reasons that solidarity is never presumed.
In how many ways may solidarity exists? Solidarity can exist only in 3 ways
1. When there is a law that provides for solidarity
2. When the parties themselves have stipulated & agreed on solidarity 3. When the nature of the obligation requires solidarity
Solidarity can exist only in these instances
So much so that those 3 things that were just mentioned, they are said to be the test of solidarity.
So that when you are given a problem whether they are solidary or not, 1. Is there a law that says that it is solidary?
2. Did the parties stipulate on solidarity?
3. Does the nature of the obligation require solidarity?
If still the answer is no, the presumption of the law is it is joint obligation. It is Joint Obligation that is presumed and never solidary. (Juliet Juliet)
Negotiable Instruments Law