1. S sold a parcel of land to B for P240,000 payable in installments of P20,000 a year.
The land
was delivered to B who obtained ownership thereof. After B had paid P200,000, he could no
longer continue paying in view of financial reverses but he was willing to pay the balance of
P40,000 if given more time. Thereupon, s sued for the rescission under Art 1191. If you were
the judge, would you grant rescission? Reason.
No, S is not sued for recission under Article 1191. If I were the judge, I will not
grant rescission because B is willing to pay the remaining balance to S. B was not able to pay
in the designated time due to the view of financial reverses and so he needs more time to be
able to pay the balance of 40,000. Instead of rescission, I will grant B a term or period for
performance of paying the remaining balance.
2. D obtained a loan from C in the amount of P50,000, payable on August 10, 2020. As security
for his debt, D mortgaged his car in favor of C. The car, however, was substantially damaged
without the fault of D. What rights, if any, does C have under the law? May C demand
payment from D even before August 10, 2020? Reason.
When dealing with an obligation with a period, the general rule is, “ the obligation
cannot be demanded until after the lapse of the prescribed time.” However, according to
Article 1198, the debtor shall lose every right to make use of the period when by his own acts
he has impaired said guaranties or securities after their establishment. In this case, even if the
said security is damaged without the fault of D or the debtor and may be caused by a
fortuitous event, the period is still disregarded and the creditor is entitled to demand the
fulfillment of the obligation. Furthermore, the obligation becomes a pure obligation which
means it is now demandable at once. Therefore, in accordance with Article 1198, C has the
right under the law need not to wait until August 10, 2020, to demand D to pay its debt
amounting to 50,000 as he can now immediately demand payment unless D can present
another security with equal satisfaction.
3. Debtor borrowed P10,000 from Creditor. It was agreed that Debtor could pay P10,000 or
deliver his piano on August 22, 2020. On August 20, Debtor informed Creditor that the
former would deliver his piano. Can Debtor still change his period considering that he was
given the right of choice? Reason.
No, the debtor will lose its right to change period considering the right of choice that he
inherently possesses. With a reference to an alternative obligation, the general rule is “The
right to choose belongs to the debtor/obligor Except When the right has been expressly
granted to the creditor. Right of choice of the debtor is not absolute.” Since on August 20, the
Debtor, who has the right of choice was able to informed the Creditor that he would deliver
his piano, then the choice is effective. As per article 1201 which states that the choice shall
produce no effect except the time it has been communicated, it ceases the obligation and
becomes a simple one, and becomes irrevocable.
4. X, Y, and Z bind themselves to pay W P30,000. Only X received the money as per the
agreement between X, Y, and Z. On the due of the obligation, has W the right to demand the
full payment of P30,000 from Z alone? Reason.
No, W does not have the right to demand full payment from Z alone, this is
according to Article 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 formers has a right
to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the
prestation. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when
the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. Solidary obligation cannot lightly
be inferred because it must be positively and clearly expressed. In this case, the liability is
not a solidary obligation but merely a joint. In joint obligation, credit or debt is presumed to
be divided into equal shares as to there are debtors. Thus, on the due of obligation, W has no
right to demand the full payment of 30,000 from Z alone. W can demand payment of 10,000
each from X, Y, and Z even if X the only one received the money.
5. X promises to deliver to Y a specific horse. Their contract contains a penal clause that in case
of non-fulfillment, X shall pay a penalty of P10,000. X wants to just pay that penalty instead
of delivering the horse. Has Y the right to refuse to accept the penalty in lieu of the horse?
Reason.
Y has the right to refuse payment of penalty of X, because Article 1227 clearly
states that the debtor cannot exempt himself from the performance of the obligation by
paying the penalty, save in the case where this right has been expressly reserved for him.
Neither can the creditor demand the fulfillment of the obligation and the satisfaction of the
penalty at the same time unless this right has been clearly granted him. However, if after the
creditor has decided to require the fulfillment of the obligation, the performance thereof
should become impossible without his fault, the penalty may be enforced. So, Y has the right
to refuse to accept the penalty in lieu of the horse because its main obligation is to deliver the
specific horse. Y can demand the performance of the obligation however, he cannot demand
X the penalty of 10,000. On the other hand, if Y will accept the penalty of 10,000 from X, he
can no longer demand the performance of the main obligation which is to deliver the specific
horse.
