PROVISION CITATION FACTS ISSUE RULING

Art. 1424. When a right PRIMITIVO ANSAY, On July 25, 1956, May the courts compel No. Article 1423 of the
to sue upon a civil ETC., ET AL appellants filed against the performance of New Civil Code
obligation has lapsed vs. appellees in the Court natural obligations? classifies obligations
by extinctive THE BOARD OF of First Instance of into civil or natural.
prescription, the obligor DIRECTORS OF THE Manila a complaint Civil obligations are a
who voluntarily NATIONAL praying for a 20% right of action to compel
performs the contract DEVELOPMENT Christmas bonus for their
cannot recover what he COMPANY, ET AL. the years 1954 and performance. Natural
has delivered or the 1955. The lower court obligations, not being
value of the service he G.R. No. L-13667 citing article 142 of the based on positive law
has rendered. Civil Code granted but on equity and
April 29, 1960 appellees motion to natural law, do not grant
dismiss holding that the a right of action to
grant of a bonus is not enforce their
a legal duty but a moral performance, but after
obligation and that the voluntary fulfillment by
court has no power to the obligor, they
compel a party to authorize the retention
comply with a moral of what has been
obligation. delivered or rendered by
reason thereof.

It is thus readily seen

that an element of
natural obligation before
it can be cognizable by
the court is voluntary
fulfillment by the
 obligor. Certainly
retention can be ordered
but only after there has
been voluntary
performance. But here
there has been no
voluntary performance.
In fact, the court cannot
order the performance.

From the legal point of

view a bonus is not a
demandable and
enforceable obligation.
It is so when it is made a
part of the wage or
salary compensation.
(Philippine Education
Co. vs. CIR and the
Union of Philippine
Education Co.,
Employees (NUL) (92
Phil., 381; 48 Off. Gaz.,
5278)

 Article 1424. When a On May 9 1912, Yes. The present action
right to sue upon a civil JUAN F. VILLARROEL, Alejandra F. Callao ISSUE: Whether or not is not based on the
obligation has lapsed vs. mother of petitioner the present action may original debt contracted
by extinctive BERNARDINO ESTRADA obtained from the Sps prosper notwithstanding by petitioners mother
prescription, the obligor Mariano Estrada and the prescription of the which has already
who voluntarily G.R. No. L-47362 Severina a loan of 1000 action to recover the prescribed but on
performs the contract pesos payable in 6 original debt? petitioners undertaking
cannot recover what he December 19, 1940 years. Alejandra died on Aug 9 1930 to
has delivered or the leaving petitioner as assume the original
value of the service he the sole heir. The Sps obligation. For the
has rendered. Mariano Estrada and petitioner who is the
Severina died as well sole heir of the original
leaving the respondent debtor with rights to the
as the sole heir. On latters inheritance, the
Aug 9 1930, petitioner debt legally contracted
signed a document by his mother even if it
assuming the obligation has already lost
to pay the respondent enforceability due to
1000 plus 12% per prescription, has
annum interest. Hence become a moral
the action filed to obligation which is a
recover said amount. sufficient consideration
The CFI ruled in favor to make the obligation
of the respondent hevoluntarily
ordering the petitioner assumed on Aug 9 1930
to pay 1000 plus enforceable and legally
interest of 12% per demandable.
annum to be counted
from Aug 9 1930.