Anda di halaman 1dari 23




Prescription is classified into two. The first is found in the first paragraph of 1106\. This refers to acquisitive
prescription. One acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under
the conditions laid down by law. The second paragraph refers to extinctive prescription. Rights and actions are
lost by prescription.

Now, prescription refers to lapse of time and it is based on law, while laches would refer to sleeping on one’s rights.
These are both based on equity, but both are valid defenses. However, this must be proved. The court will not
simply accept the allegation of prescription or laches. These must be proven.

Now, 1107. Persons who are capable of acquiring property or rights by the other legal modes - so what are
those other legal modes of acquiring property or rights? It might be through onerous title, gratuitous title, and the
third one is occupation through prescription.

Minors and other incapacitated persons may acquire property or rights by prescription, either personally or
through their parents, guardians or legal representatives.

Now, minors or other incapacitated persons, may be by reason of mental incapacity, like the insane, or physically
incapacitated, are still allowed to enter into obligations. Because, the obligations of contracts or agreements entered
into by minors or incapacitated are not void, merely voidable. But, as a general rule, that would be...the right, rather,
to annul is only granted to the incapacitated who might be a minor or incapacitated, mentally or physically, not the

Now, against whom shall prescription run? (1108)

Prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, runs against:

(1) Minors and other incapacitated persons who have parents, guardians or other legal representatives;

We go back to Article 225 of your Family Code, where if the incapacitated or minor has property, unemancipated,
has property of his or her own, the law grants the right to administer the property of the minor to the father and the
mother. In case of disagreement, the father’s decision shall prevail.

(2) Absentees who have administrators, either appointed by them before their disappearance, or appointed by
the courts;

So, the absentee who have appointed an administrator. Those given the right, by law, to have the absentee judicially
declared an absentee can file a petition for the declaration of absence. Without the administrator, 2 years, with the
administrator, 5 years, before disappearance.

(3) Persons living abroad, who have managers or administrators;

(4) Juridical persons, except the State and its subdivisions.

Now, remember that prescription does not lie against the State but this can be defeated by laches. Hence, the holding
of the Court in the case of Republic v. CA.

Persons who are disqualified from administering their property have a right to claim damages from their
legal representatives whose negligence has been the cause of prescription.

Like the minor who sells the property, which is voidable during the minority, it is, of course, the obligation of the
parents, the guardian, the representative appointed by the Court to file the appropriate action. And thus, if they
would not (file), and it has already prescribed, then they can be held liable for damages.

Now, between whom shall prescription apply? That’s 1109.

Prescription does not run between husband and wife, even though there be a separation of property agreed
upon in the marriage settlements or by judicial decree.

Marriage settlement is before the marriage, as well as, any modification thereof. Judicial decree is one obtained
during the marriage, whether for sufficient cause or voluntarily by the spouses.

Neither does prescription run between parents and children,

Because of Article 225. Take note that, the parents or guardian would become the administrator over the property of
the minor or the incapacitated.

(Neither does prescription run) between the guardian and the ward during the continuance of the

In fact, as we go on further, there is that requirement on the part of the guardian to make an accounting on the
property being administered for and in behalf of the ward.

Now, (Article 1111) Prescription obtained by a co-proprietor or a co-owner shall benefit the others.

So, this would refer to one that is an act beneficial to the co-ownership. Although the increase in area might only be
through the occupation or possession of one of the co-owners, but nonetheless, because this is beneficial to all the
other co-owners, then the co-owners, even if they do not physically possess the property, shall still be benefited by
the increase in area.

Article 1112. Persons with capacity to alienate property may renounce prescription already obtained, but not
the right to prescribe in the future.

So, an example of this would an obligation that has already prescribed, but the debtor may renounce prescription,
comply with the obligation, it becomes a natural obligation. And, there is this tacit renunciation of prescription
under the 2nd paragraph, which would refer to acts which would imply the abandonment of the right acquired.

Then we go to 1113. All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription, unless
otherwise provided.

The exceptions are property possessed through a crime cannot be acquired by prescription. Likewise, lands
registered under the Torrens system or Jones title. That was the application of the Court in the case of Supapo v. De
And of course, property belonging to the State cannot be acquired by prescription, in the case of Republic v.
Espinosa, whereby even if it is declared alienable or disposable, but what are the additional requisites, in order for it
to be available for prescription? (answer: There is an official declaration that the subject property is no longer
earmarked for public service or the development of national wealth.) So, those are the requirements. It is insufficient
that the State declares it to be alienable and disposable. There must be compliance with the other requirements stated
by the Court in the case of Republic v. Espinosa.

Now, what are those properties of the State not patrimonial in character? Example of which would be abandoned
streets, plazas, likewise, that Regalian doctrine (sa sea ata ang Regalian). Rivers, likewise, and waters cannot be
acquired because those always belong to the State.

Property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of
prescription. Okay, so we have already discussed that.

Now, let's go to 1117 on acquisitive prescription of dominion. It might either be ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary,
10 years. But, the condition is? Good faith. What else? Just title. What else? The concept of an owner, peaceful,
public, uninterrupted. These are the other requisites. You can find that in 1118, aside from good faith and just title.
So, the additional requisites are found in 1118. It must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and
uninterrupted. He must be in actual possession of the property, developing it or tilling it, if it were a parcel of land,
agricultural. Public means that it must be known to all the other occupants within the premises that he is the
possessor of the property. It must be peaceful, meaning no other person is contesting the occupation of the occupant.
It must be uninterrupted because if it were interrupted for more than 1 year, it would start all over again. That would
refer to natural interruption.

Now, exception, 1119.

Acts of possessory character executed in virtue of license or by mere tolerance of the owner shall not be
available for the purposes of possession.

So, an example of that would be the informal settlers, even if allowed to possess.

So, we go to interruption for purposes of prescription, natural and civil.

For purposes of natural interruption, it must be more than 1 year because if it is less than 1 year, or 1 year or less,
1 year, no interruption. 1 year, ha, no interruption, because the law says more than 1 year. So, what happens if the
possessor returns to the property after an absence of 1 year? The period that has already been running shall be
counted in favor of the possessor. Otherwise, if it is more than 1 year, he has to start all over again. So, if he is in
bad faith, then 30 years, even if he had been in possession for, say 20, start siya all over again, because it's more than
1 year. Pag 1 year or less, the 20-year period is still counted in his favor. Do you understand?

Then, the other one is civil interruption. How is this effected? By judicial summons. But nonetheless, even if there
is a receipt of judicial summons, there is no civil interruption under the following instances: (1124)

(1) What is void, judicial summons is void for lack of legal solemnities. - meaning there is absence of the parties to
the complaint or the plaintiff, so it becomes void.

(2) There is a case already filed, but the complainant filed a motion to dismiss. That is what meant by desist from the
complaint. In the second, allowed the proceedings to lapse, meaning there is already a case to be heard by the Court
but the plaintiff did not appear, so the defendant may file a motion to declare the plaintiff non-suited, or no longer
interested to pursue the complaint.

(3) The third situation envisions a complete hearing. There was trial on the merits, but the decision of the Court
favors the defendant.

So, in all these cases, the period of interruption shall be counted for the prescription.

Third way of interrupting possession, that's 1125. Any express or tacit recognition which the possessor may
make of the owner's right also interrupts possession.

Okay, (1126) against a title recorded in the Registry of Property, ordinary prescription of ownership or real
rights shall not take place to the prejudice of a third person, except in virtue of another title also recorded;
and the time shall begin to run from the recording of the latter.

Let's go the case of Supapo v. De Jesus. Who has a better right over the property? Where the owners would only
visit the property once or twice a year. Then, in one of their visits, they found out that the property is already
occupied by another person. But, it was a registered property, so, that’s the application. So, the occupants have no
better right over the registered owners, despite the fact that they are only there once or twice a year.

But, in Lausa v. Quilaton, who has a better right over the property? Where Mauricia filed a petition for the
reconstitution of lost title over the property. None of the parties. Why? That TCT No. 571 is inexistent, because
there is no such parcel of land, Lot No. 557. And then, as well, with respect to the original possessors? There was
cancellation of the deed of assignment. Or, assuming that there was a valid deed, anong sabi ng Court? It was not
shown that he had paid the balance over the property, so neither of them.

Now, suppose the property is sold twice or thrice by the registered owner, we go to Article 1544. So, the
between the possessor of the oldest title, and the one who had registered first, who is given the right? The first to
register. The one in possession of the title as against the one in possession of the property? Possessor without the
proper document?

So, what does good faith mean? (Article 1127) It consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he
received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership. That is the meaning of good faith.

But, let’s go to the next article. (Article 1129) For the purposes of prescription, there is just title when the
adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the
acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any

Okay, suppose that it is one subject to a suspensive condition, can he transmit the right over the thing, which is the
subject matter of a suspensive condition? No. His right over it is merely inchoate (?). But, does he have just title?
Yes. What about 1187? Prior to the happening of the suspensive condition, if it is a determinate object, can he
encumber it, dispose of it? (if it were indeterminate, yes, because he can always replace it) No, because of 1188.
Does he have just title over it? Yes.


DAY 1 (20:00-33:00)
Do you remember the case of CPU?

Diba that ownership cannot be transferred? Otherwise there can be no construction of a legal ruling. So there is a
breach of the happening of the resolutory condition. Another example that I gave you when can an owner transfer
his right? By the execution of deed of sale.

Modes recognized by law – Acquisition of a thing through?

Acquisition of a thing through Onerous title, that is in payment of the original obligation consisting of a sum of
money. Then, the debtor at the time of fulfillment offers a thing accepted by the creditor. Does he have a right over
it? Yes. Can he transmit? No, because the law further requires that it be governed by the deed of sale. Thus, he has
to demand an execution of deed of sale for him to be able to transfer the right over that thing being the object.

So the title for prescription must be true and valid. For purposes of prescription, the just title must be proved it is
never presumed. You have to prove that you have just title over it.

Now, what about movables. Ano ang prescriptive period, ordinary 4 years and extraordinary 8 years.

Pursuant to 1133, it can never be possessed through crime. What are the exceptions? Markets, fair, sale or through
merchant store. For purposes of crime, but it was acquired through public auction or merchant store, fair or markethe
can acquire the property not by prescription but by one of the modes in requiring the modes of the property through
onerous title.

And I remember this because of the case of Uypitching, where Mr. Quiamco was sued for the violation of the Anti-
Fencing Law. But the Supreme Court said that he is liable where the motorcycle was placed in the part of the
establishment where there is an easy access or viewed by the public in general.

And of course the news just this morning about the mountain bike claim for 180,000 pesos sa Paranaque where later
on that it was found out that bought by a third person in Caloocan. And his defense that he bought it in good faith.
But the violation of the Anti-Fencing Law where good faith cannot be used as a defense. But if you acquired it
through public auction, exception yun!

1134 – Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through
possession of ten years.

1135 – In case the adverse claimant possesses by mistake an area greater, or less, than that expressed in his title,
prescription shall be based on the possession.

In the case of Republic vs Court of Appeals, the court did not apply prescription it applied laches,
estoppel by laches because it allowed 24 years before it filed an appropriate action to recover in the increase in area
the property owned by St. Jude Enterprises. Likewise, how many times did St. Jude Enterprises sought the approval
of ruling? 3 times. And all those government agencies approved the subdivision despite knowledge that there was an
increase in the area of the property. So it applied not the principle of prescription but estoppel by laches.

Now lets go to the rule 1138- In computing the time,

(1) The present possessor may complete the period- suppose there was bad faith of the predecessor and
the successor possess it by good faith. The predecessor occupied it for 20 years, 10 years na lang ang
kulang. So what about the successor in good faith? 30/10 that’s 3 divide it to 20/3=6.7. So the
possessor has still complete 3 years and 5 months. The same holds true if the original possessor is in
good faith. Then the subsequent possessor is in bad faith.

Let’s go to the Presumption

(2) The present possessor who was also the possessor at a previous time, has continued to be
continued in possession during the intervening time, unless there is proof to the contrary.
(3) And the last would be the application of Article 13 of the Civil Code, when counting the period, the
first day shall be excluded and the last day included.

Now prescription of ownership Andres vs Sta. Lucia Realty, why did the court deny – because it was established
that the property is still the property of the state and cannot be alienable disposable. There can be no claim that they
own property through occupation or prescription because it was not declared alienable and disposable.

Chapter 3 – Prescription of Action

1139 – Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law. But you should remember actions to recover
movables unless the possessor is in good faith then he could no longer recover - that the exception. Unless the
successor acquired the ownership for prescription for a less period meaning the possessor is in good faith. What
about immovable? 30. Unless ano exception jan? He acquired it in good faith – 10 so that has already prescribed the
action to recover. What about mortgage? Why was there no prescription in Maybank Philippines vs Tarrosa,
there was demand pero ang counting is not necessary because according to the Tarrosas’s demand, nagprescribe na
at the time they were in default. But in as much as it was not proven, the prescription shall run for the time in
default. So di pa siya nag prescribe.


1. What if the owner of the property is the offender (?)

Ay iba nay an yun even if you are the offender but you acquired it through public auction exempt na siya,
everybody can participate in the auction.

2. What is the remedy of the owner of the property when the property was sold in a public auction?
Wala na. Lost forever. Because he should be vigilant.

-the end-

Okay, so the additional cases on prescription (2 cases):

1.) Caltex Philippines Incorporated v. Singzon-Aguirre 787 SCRA 73:

This involved the sea collision between ah..there was this most number of fatalities. This involves the application of
Art. 1112 where Caltex Philippines, the defendant, waived the defense of prescription but nonetheless the court
dismissed the case for another reason and that’s for you to find out.

2.) Heirs of Feliciano Yambao v. Heirs of Hermogenes Yambao G.R. No. 194260 (Apr. 13, 2016):

Both parties here are relatives and having parts of a parcel of land, they are co-owners where while the general rule
is that there can be no prescription that would run between co-owners there is an exception when one of the co-
owners would repudiate the co-ownership but there are certain requisites that must be complied with in order that
there shall be repudiation of the co-ownership and one positive act of repudiating the co-ownership is the issuance of
a new title in the name of the repudiating co-owner which was true in the case at bar.

But, the court said that Feliciano, the heirs of Feliciano did not acquire the property through repudiation of the co-
ownership. Again, it’s for you to read and find out. One of the exceptions is where the property is registered so that
is considered as a positive act of repudiation but nonetheless in this case it was not applied by the court. The reason
as I’ve said is for you to find out.
Now, let’s go to Maybank v. Tarrosa: So, there was no prescription yet on the part of Maybank to foreclose the
mortgage because the basis of the counting of the period was the final demand that was sent by Maybank to the

So, what are those that will not prescribe? You have Art. 1143:

1.) To demand a right of way:

Which is not (inaudible) in the case of Andres v. Sta. Lucia Realty because it was proven that they were
not the owners of the property because it was still owned the State and it was not declared inalienable and

2.) To bring an action to abate a public or private nuisance

Then, what are those actions that would prescribe within 10 years? Art. 1144:

1.) Upon a written contract:

In the case of Republic v. Banez, this involved a parcel of land that was bought by Cellophil Resources
Corporation (CRC). Did it prescribe already? There was an interruption. There was a demand made by CRC, isn’t
it? What about the absence of authority of Mr. Hojilla? So he represented Mr. Banez because remember Mr. Banez
went to another country. The application of the principle of estoppel, isn’t it? So, all acts that were performed by Mr.
Hojilla were considered valid through the application of the principle of estoppel.

2.) Upon an obligation created by law

3.) Upon a judgment

Now, what are those that would prescribe within 6 years? Art. 1145:

1.) Upon an oral contract

2.) Upon a quasi-contract:

So, quasi-contract (negotiorum gestio and solutio indebiti)

What are those that must be brought within 4 years? Art. 1146:

1.) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff:

In the case of Montero v. Times Transportation. Here, the first case was actually withdrawn it was not
dismissed, noh? So, according to the court it is as if there was no case that was filed. So it has already prescribed
because this refers to illegal dismissal upon quasi-delict.

2.) Upon a quasi-delict:

Example is the case of Estrella v. Construction Development Corp. where it involved the collision
between the towing truck of CDCP and BLTB and the Estrellas requested (inaudible) thereof. So they are solidarily
liable for being joint tortfeasors.

So, what are those that must be brought within 1 year? Art. 1147:

1.) Provision on remedies, forcible entry and detainer

2.) For defamation

Note: Those that are not fixed in the Civil Code or other laws is 5 years from the time the cause of action accrues.

Now, what are the ways of interrupting the running of the prescriptive period? Art. 1155:

1.) Judicial – means there is already a case filed in court

2.) Written extrajudicial demand by the creditor

3.) Written acknowledgment by the debtor of his debt

Now, we go to Art. 1156: The definition of what is an obligation.


The complete definition is given by Arias Ramos were all elements of obligation are given because for obligation to
be valid, there are three elements the first one the personal element consisting of the creditor or the oblige or the
active subject because he makes the demand. The second personal element is the passive subject or the debtor or the
obligor because he waits for the demand.

When is it the obligor can perform and the creditor cannot refuse? When the period is in favor of the debtor. Then he
can comply with the obligation, the creditor cannot refuse.

Now, the creditor need not be determinate at the time constitution of the obligation provided he is determinable.
Example is Negotiable instruments payable to bearer or attach at the time of the issuance of the negotiable
instruments that can’t yet determine the owner of the negotiable instrument. It becomes determinate at the time that
the negotiable instruments by the check is presented for encashment. Objects likewise need not be determinate at the
time of the creation or constitution of the obligation provided it is determinable. For example is a generic or
indeterminate object, it becomes determinate at the time of the fulfillment because it is stipulated from the same
class or specie, so it becomes determinate. And of course we have, the object or the prestation, it refers to the
manner that would refer to the giving, doing or not doing. It is not the object per se but whether the act will be
perform and the manner of which is to be perform it is to give, to do or not to do. And then the last is the efficient
cause, the vinculum or juridical tie that bound to be known by determining the source of the obligation which might
be the law, contract, quasi-contract, delicts and quasi delicts.

And 1159 on Autonomy of will, take note that what would govern in the obligation is the stipulation of the parties
subject to the condition that it should not be contrary to law, order or public or public policy or public order.
Excluding to this is the Attorney’s fees, the agreement between lawyer and the client that will be always subject by
the stipulation of the courts and the obligation of the principle of quantum meruit.

Now let’s now go to obligation to give, so if the obligation is to give a determinate object, what are the accessory
obligations of the debtor prior to the delivery? Take care of the thing with, in the absence of any stipulations to the
contrary with the diligence of the good father of a family because the parties may agree on another standard of care
which might either be extraordinary diligence or slight diligence.

Now upon delivery, he has to deliver the fruits and what right has the creditor from the fruits the prior delivery?
Merely personal right against the other party because it is delivery that transfers ownership and how is delivery
made? Actual and Constructive. When we talk of constructive delivery ( tradition symbolica, Longa Manu, Brevi
Manu, Instrumental, Constructum Possessorium, Traditio by operation of law, Quasi tradition)

So when there is now a delivery, what happens to the right of the creditor over the thing? It becomes a real right and
it can run against the whole world. So come the fruits? It becomes an accessory
When we talk about accessories , they are attached to the ornaments to the principal thing, what about accession, it
refer to accession natural or accession industrial that accession is a recap because that would refer to fruits which
covered in 1164 already. So accessions would refer to like a building (accession industrial)

I come into this very interesting case but I can no longer remember but I can no longer remember the title but I can
remember the facts:

X will pay a loan from the bank. This loan is secured by a mortgage consisting a parcel of land. This is what you call
as a real estate mortgage. X did not pay the load so what the bank did is to exercise its right of mortgage which also
the highest bidder. Then there was no redemption so there was a consolidation of title so when we say
consolidation, it means that title over the property is transferred into the creditor. Then Y file a case against x for the
annulment or declaration of nullity of the deed of sale which is the issuance of the title in x claim. Where y claim
this is a forgery and the court upheld because it was indeed a forgery and the court said that the deed of sale is null
and void but the bank is a mortgagee in good faith. The court now ordered of the reconveyance of the title in y’s
The bank is a mortgagee in good faith. The court now ordered the re-conveyance of the title in Y’s favor. So,
transferred now in Y’s name but carried over is the annotation.

What is that annotation? Itong mortgage

Issue: This property has improvements and the court said these are accessions because it constituted of a
building and the accession according to the court produces fruits

So what kind of fruit is that? CIVIL FRUITS CONSITING OF RENTALS

Ngayon, sabi ni Y I am entitled to the rentals because I am the owner…

Sabi naman ng bank, hindi! it has been consolidated in our name

Sabi ni Y, hindi because the sale was a nullity

Who has a better right over the fruits?

Answer ni ma’am:

If you’re going to look at it, why should the bank suffer? Sabi ng court mortgagee in good faith final and executory
because neither of the parties appealed the decision.

Sabi ng court “annotate”. So, by that declaration alone, ownership is still retained by y, that consolidation, actually,
all these, because the court said without prejudice to the right of Y in another custody to have all these declared void
kasi wala siyang basis for the foreclosure because in the first place the root of the foreclosure, the root of the
mortgage, is null and void

According to the court, it was Y who has the right over the accessions because what was only mortgage is the parcel
of land.

If you are to follow your statcon, if nothing there is said about the improvements then it is only limited to the subject
of the real estate mortgage which is the land pero pag nilagay ko “including the improvements thereon” then maybe,
just maybe, the rentals will go to the bank.
But according to the court, this is without prejudice of y to have all these questioned before the court because it
cannot be the root of a valid title because from the very beginning it was void.

What are the rights that may be availed of by the creditors on the event of non-fulfillment by the debtor?

That’s 1165, if it is a determinate object, then it can demand specific performance plus damages. If it were
indeterminate or generic, then he can have it performed at the expense of the debtor or by a third person plus

Now the exceptions to the general rule under 1174 is found in the 3 rd par.

If the debtor delays

If he has promised to deliver the same thing to other persons who do not have the same interests he shall be
responsible for any fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery

So we go now to the principle of delay

Delay in 1169 is not the grammatical meaning of the word “Delay”

This refers to default of non fulfillment of the obligation, whether by the debtor or the creditor, with respect to time.

Day 2 (27:01-36:00)

..non –fulfilment of the obligation whether by the debtor or the creditor with respect to time, so the creditor rule is
that before, according to the obligation can be liable for damages by reason of delay on the performance of an
obligation, there must be demand whether judicial or extra-judicial. So from that time on when demand was made
and no performance, then delay by the obligor or the obligee begins, and he is now liable for damages. Even if the
obligation has this acceleration clause, that failure to pay one or two instalments of the entire obligation shall
become due and demandable, according to the most decisions of the Court there must first be a demand, to place the
obligor in delay. Now what are the exceptions? The law, the stipulation of the parties and it is the controlling motive
why the parties enter into the obligation. So example of which is that the date of payment is fixed because the
creditor is to pay the said payment on another obligation but there must be knowledge on the part of the debtor, it is
necessary. And what are the different kinds of delay? We have mora solvendi, delay on the part of the debtor and
what are the effects? Liable for damages, liable for the deterioration of the object of the prestation and on the other
hand if the creditor refuses to accept the thing delivered that is the very thing due and the obligation is already due
and demandable, but refuses to accept it without just cause so there is what you call as mora accipiendi and what are
the effects? Aside from damages, the deterioration shall be at the expense of the creditor or borne by the creditor
unless it is caused through his gross negligence or fraud, number 2 if there is interest, then interest shall stop at the
time that performance is made. Third, necessary expenses for the preservation of the thing which is the object of the
prestation shall be at the expense of the creditor meaning he can demand reimbursement for the necessary expenses
and he can absolve himself from the obligation by consigning the very thing due to the courts. Now what about
compensation morae, in reciprocal obligations, so what is a reciprocal obligation? Is one that arises from the same
cause whereby the parties are mutually creditor and debtor of each other such that … (class murmuring)… so delay
by the other begins, so how it is to be performed? Simultaneously. Can reciprocal obligation be waived? …(class
murmuring)…Kinds of delay. Ok let’s go to the cases, Leano v. the CA, in whose favour by the way is the period
here? In favour of the debtor within 10 years but is Carmelita Leano in delay? The agreement is actually to deliver
the instalments monthly which was not complied with Leano. Heirs of Bacus… the parties are not ready to comply
with their respective obligation on the part of the heirs to execute the deed of sale on the apart of the lessees, to
deliver the purchase price, what was only presented is the certification coming from the bank. Now in the case of
Megaworld, why is there no necessity of making a demand? There was actually a delay for about 3 yrs where
demand would no longer served anymore of course, no further delay in the performance of the obligation,
Megaworld is surely in delay there was only full payment of the purchase price on the part of Minerva Tanseco.
General Milling v. Ramos, there was no demand the letter merely… because for it to be considered a demand it must
be so stated such as in the case of what? Where the court case said there is a demand, anong case yon? Republic
v.Banez . Cruz v. Grospe, payment of interest, when shall it begin, not from the time of the signing of the joint
undertaking but rather upon the filing of the case in court, so can there be payment of 15% was reduce to how
much? 12%, because at that time it is only peg at 12%. Let’s go to 1174, what is the general rule in fortuitous event?
no person shall be responsible for the events which cannot be foreseen though foreseen were inevitable so in the last
sentence that refers to the case of Philcomsat v. Globe telecom, it was foreseeable but the non-approval of t the
treaty by the congress, the congress would refer to the lower and upper house, is considered to be a fortuitous event
and the parties in the contract has no participation in the extension of the treaty so according to the court it is a
fortuitous event. So what are the exceptions where even if there is a fortuitous event the obligation is not
extinguished? stipulation, law, doctrine of created risk or the assumption of risk, nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, the obligor has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do not have the
same interest when the obligor is already in delay the obligation, the object of the obligation is indeterminate even if
it is determinate still it arises from a criminal offense, regardless of the cause of the loss unless the person who is to
receive it refuses to accept it without just cause, the last? When the fortuitous event is couple with the negligence….

1174 a tire blowout is not a fortuitous event. Diligence required in transportation, extra ordinary diligence.
Transportation of goods. Hijacking is fortuitous or not? In the case of PAL vs CA involving a hijack and passengers
were killed. PAL was forced exempt from liability by reason of the fact it was not the PAL personnel that conducted
the search, frisking was done by the “ABSECOM” because it is till fortuitous event. Hijacking is a fortuitous event
unless there is negligence on part of the accused. Take note that they must observe extraordinary diligence. If you
remember that case the passengers actually sued PAL and the reason why PAL was but they are not the ones that
personally searched, but if it was done by PAL they would absolutely be liable for damages.

1184 Impossible Conditions it will only annul the obligation if the fulfillment of the obligation would depend upon
the impossible condition. Which might consists of physical or natural or conjugal contrary to the law of nature or it
might be legal or juridical. It is only subject to that requirement that if the obligation would depend upon the
fulfillment of the impossible condition then it should annul the entire obligation.

1185 Exception is if it is become indubitable that the will not take place then the condition is deemed not to be
included in the obligation, so the obligation shall subsist. And if the civility must be present at the time of the
creation of the obligation even if a supervening event happens and becomes possible it will still annul the obligation
because the requirements of the law is that it must not be present at the time of the creation of the obligation.
Likewise if it is possible at the time of the creation that the reason of the supervening event becomes impossible the
obligation is not affected, the obligation shall subsist. An example of which is expropriation, obligation still shall
subsist subject to that supervening event of expropriation of the State.

In the case of DBP what was that impossible condition? The impossibility why DBP refused to reconvey to the
ordinary owners. There is this enactment of the law that prohibits alienation of agricultural land to (inaudible). So in
this case there is no application of the condition because there was a “inaudible” in the purchase price. They were
not the original land owners, the original land owners were different.

1186 this constructive fulfillment of the obligation applies only when it is the debtor that volountarily prevents the
fulfillment. And yet in the case of Tayag vs CA why did the court say there is constructive fulfillment even if the
creditor prevented. Being a reciprocal obligation the parties are creditor and debtor of each other.

1187 refers to the happening of suspensive condition and the law provides that the perfection of the obligation
retroacts to the date of the creation or constitution. It being an accessory element, because an obligation can still
subsists despite the absence of the condition. Remember a pure obligation, so that is why for as long as the 3
elements of an obligation is present then the obligation is deemed to have existed at the time of its creation. Prior to
the happening if there are fruit or interest received in a reciprocal obligation the law provides that it should be
mutually compensated. It will not run obligations (di jud masabtan) usufruct it shall be appropriated by the debtor
unless there is an intention which is contrary to the provision of the law.

1188 this would refer to the right/course of an action that may be availed by the creditor in an obligation subject to
suspensive condition where the object of the obligation is specific. Thus prior to the happening of the suspensive
condition of the debtor, performing acts that would tend to bring danger or prejudice to the creditor. He should go
the court seek the appropriate remedy that would protect his interest, might come in the form of prohibition or
redemption. 1188 applies only when the object of prestation is determinate, if it is indeterminate then he can always
perform the obligation by simply performing and complying and obtaining the object from the same class or species.
So the prohibition would only apply to specific object of an obligation.

Rules to be observed in given loss, deterioration or improvement. Loss without default then the obligation is
extinguished. Loss with default…. It is impaired by the default, 2 choices given to the creditor shall bear the
impairment if without default. Improvement by nature or time benefit to of the creditor. If it is improved at the
expense of the debtor that which is the right to remove improvement provided no substantial injury shall result to the
principal upon which the improvement is attached. If there is then he cannot remove the improvement and cannot be
entitled to reimbursement.


However, if there is expense from the part of the debtor at the same time with the relation then there is mutual

1190 refers to an obligation subject to a resolutory condition. The same rules to be observed, in the event of loss,
deterioriation or improvement. What are the other effects upon the happening of the resolutory condition? It
distinguishes the obligation? The obligation of the parties that mutually restored to each other of what one had
received from the other. But what has left the debtor’s patch money and the transferee is in good faith then the
debtor can only be liable for the price, the value and the interest. If the transferee is in bad faith, and he has
knowledge that it is subject to a resolutory condition then there can still be a recovery of what has been delivered.

1191 on rescission but the appropriate term here is actually resolution. First paragraph of 1191 refers to the tacit
resolutory condition whereby this is only true in reciprocal obligations such as power to rescind is implied in
reciprocal obligations. In case one of the obligors does not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The
exceptions are:

1. Expressly stipulated by the parties that regardless of the degree of breach rescission must be applied;

2. 1191 does not apply to contracts of lease, it’s covered by the Civil Code of the law on lease;

3. This should not apply to sale of property on installments involving movable properties that are governed by the
Recto Law;

4. And sale on installments of realty that’s governed by the Maceda Law.

Another in the Maceda Law, did I give the Pagtalunan case? For one to invoke rescission under the Maceda Law,
there must be that notarial rescission. It is insufficient that one invokes rescission under 1191. There must be that
notarial notice of rescission given by a lawyer. And if the breach is light, there can be no rescission. The court will
only grant this rescission claimed if the breach is substantial. Otherwise, there can be no rescission and the court
would fix the period in which the obligor shall comply with the obligation. And moreover, the remedies mentioned
in 1191 are not, the remedies are only in the alternative. When shall it be both? Given the injured party demands
fulfillment but fulfillment becomes impossible. But as a general rule, it is alternative.

Now, distinguish 1191 from 138, there are 4 and by the way if you are asked to enumerate, enumerate properly and
complete. Minus one pag hindi. Do not give me a paragraph. And do not leave a question blank, you can write the
Lord’s prayer, it is still entitled to 3.

Okay, how will you distinguished 1381 from 1191? 1191 applies only to reciprocal obligations, 1381 applies even to
unilateral obligations. 1191 is principal, whereas 1381 is subsidiary. Then 1191 can only be invoked by the injured
party while 1381 invoked even by a third party creditor, who’s not a party to the contract. And the last is, this is
applicable to ano? Breach of faith in the performance of the obligation. On the other hand, economic, or injury or
prejudice. That’s 1381.

Now in the case of Cannu vs Galang, why did the court allowed rescission despite the defense raised by the buyer
that the agent of the seller had accepted payments even beyond the agreed period for the payment of the purchased
price? Was it considered as a waiver on the part of the seller for the right to receive? Was it considered as a waiver?
It was not. Why not? It was rather considered as an accommodation. Accommodation. And the breach is
substantial. Take note that because actually the seller who paid the balance of the mortgage.

Now in the case of Maglasang, is it proper on the part of Northwestern to stop the construction of the IBS? Yes,
because there was substantial breach consisting of the delivered components (1) were old, (2) did not have
construction manuals and warranty certificates; (3) contained indications of being reconditioned machines; and (4)
did not meet the IMO and CHED standards. The standards, the quality of the components. Okay.

Swire Realty, this is a contract to sell. By the way, 1191 does not apply to contracts to sell, as the general rule,
because 1191 applies only to contracts that already in extant, meaning existing. So there is no contract existing yet in
a contract to sell because it is subject to positive suspensive condition and that is the delivery of the purchase price.
And yet, in the case of Swire, the court allowed rescission. What is their reason? There was full payment on the part
of Yu of that condominium unit. So, the court allowed because obligation actually of Swire already arises and that is
to transfer title and ownership of the condo unit in favor of the buyer. But it was not complied with by Swire Realty.

Fong vs Duenas, why is there an application of 1192? As much as it is an oral contract it cannot be determined who
breach the obligation first, so the application of the first sentence of 1192.

Cupino vs Pacific Rehouse, so who is the injured party? Was it the seller? Pacific. In fact, they were demanding
several times for the payment of the purchase price. What about the allegation that the real purchase price is 200
pesos as proven by the addendum? Was it proven? That addendum was not signed by the Pacific Rehouse and all
offer employee of Pacific Rehouse signed only as a witness.

Nolasco vs Cuerpo, is the rescission proper? No. Why not? *Dom’s answers*

ASB Realty vs Ortigas, ASB is not a party isn’t it? What about the thought that the annotation is carried over the
new title, now in the name of ASB? Would not be that sufficient notice of the requirements that was entered into by
Amethyst and Ortigas? How did the court resolved on that particular issue, what about that carried over annotation?
The obligation was not transferred because diba Deed of Assignment yun, they assigned the property in favor of
ASB, but there was this annotation not to revoke the purposes to residential and ample retain establishment,
only as for residential and for office use. But is ASB party to the agreement, the answer is no. So. they are not
bound by the contract which is entered into earlier by Amethyst and Ortigas. Questions? Do not touch on estoppel
ha, I will give this again when we go to Novation of Estoppel.

Okay we got to Obligations with a period. From day certain, ano yan? Anong klase? Ex die? In diem? Ex die or
suspensive. To a day certain? Ano yan? In diem, it is resolutory period.

And if the period is stipulated in the obligation, whose benefit is it? For the benefit of both creditor and debtor and
that the creditor cannot demand fulfillment from the obligor prior to the happening of or the arrival of the period.
Nor can the debtor compel to comply with the obligation before the arrival of the period, but there are periods for
the benefit of either. (20:01-30:00)

So, when the obligation says payable on or before, for whose benefit is that? Debtor.

If the other party decides to pre-terminate the contract, you will be liable of pre-termination fee of 10 months
installment. For whose benefit is that? Creditor.

In the case Leano v Court of Appeals: Within 10 years? For the benefit of the debtor. And yet, why did the court say
that there is delay? There was no fulfillment. The obligation is payable in installment. She cannot seek refuge on that
10-year period to pay.
Within the tenth year? Creditor.

Now, if a period is agreed upon, but there is no definitely in which the debtor shall comply? Go to Article 1197. The
creditor seeks from the court the fixing of the period. Because any demand without the period being fixed is

Exception: The ruling of the court in the case of CPU and Manila Railroad. The fixing of the period would serve no
other purpose except to further delay the performance of the obligation.

Now, one of the instances where the debtor loses the benefit of the period: 1198. What happens if the debtor loses
the benefit of the period? The obligation will be due and demandable.

So, what are the grounds:

1. Insolvency. Is there a need of a court declaration that the debtor is insolvent? No. It is sufficient that the he
doesn’t able to make his obligations. The obligations become due and demandable
a. Exception: if he will give a security or guaranty
2. If he does not furnish the security or guaranty promised
3. There are two situations covered:
a. If the security or guaranty is impaired by a fortuitous event, does the debtor lose the benefit of the
period? The debtor does not lose the benefit of the period. He loses the benefit of the period by
reason of a fortuitous event if it has disappeared
b. But if it has been impaired through his fault, what happens? He loses the benefit of the period,
unless he gives new ones equally satisfactory
4. If he violates any undertaking to which the creditor agreed to the period
5. He attempts to abscond


When is there an alternative obligation? Several prestations but only one is due.

Who has the right of choice? The debtor has the right of choice. And if he has chosen? He has to communicate to the
creditor his choice, and that the obligation has become simple and he is now ready to comply with what is
incumbent upon him. That is the purpose of the communication.

When is the debtor entitled to damages in an alternative obligation? If the creditor prevents the debtor from making
a choice.

If there are four prestations and one is lost through the fault of the obligor, and the choice is with the debtor? He can
deliver from any of those remaining.
If three are lost by reason of fault? The one remaining.

If all are lost by reason of the fault? The value of the last disappeared by reason of his negligence.

When is the creditor given the right of choice? If it has been expressly granted to him.

And if he has been given the right of choice, and one (among the four) is lost through a fortuitous event? Among
those three remaining.

One is lost because of fortuitous event and one is lost by reason of his negligence? He may choose from any of those
remaining or the value of the thing that was lost through his negligence.

If all are lost by reason of the negligence of the obligor? *answered by someone but inaudible*

What is a facultative obligation? There is only one principal prestation that is due, but the debtor may render another
in substitution. Who is given the right of choice in a facultative obligation? Only the debtor.

So if the debtor destroys or impairs the substitute, he cannot be held liable for damages because there is only one
prestation due.

But once he has chosen the substitute and destroys it through negligence, he will be liable for damages. The creditor
cannot ask for the delivery of the principal even if the principal is still subsisting.


we’re already in joint and solidary obligations

joint obligations are those which each of the debtors is liable only of his proportion of the debt and each of the
creditors is only liable for his portion and part of the credit.

and thus there are as many debts as debtors, and as many credits as there are creditors.

and a demand made upon one of the joint debtor will only stop the running of the prescriptive period with respect to
the debtor upon whom demand is made and does not affect the running of the prescriptive period with respect to the
other debtors where no demand is made.

likewise the insolvency of one of the debtors will not increase the liability of the other joint debtors. and if one of the
creditors would collect, he is only entitled to the part of the credit that belongs to him and is not under obligation to
share with whatever he had collected with the other debtors.

now aside from the word joint, their obligation is joint under the following terms:

“mancomunada, mancomunada simple, pro rata.”

(not in recording but note: The phrase “We promise to pay” followed by the signatures of the two debtors indicates
that the obligation is joint.)

while solitary obligation is one which each debtor is liable for the entire obligation and one creditor is entitled to
receive the entire obligation, and demand compliance with the entire obligation.

so aside from the word solidary, it can also come with the forms:

joint and several, insolidum, Mancomunada solidaria, juntos o separamendente, individually and collectively.

(Note: The “ I promise to pay” followed by the signatures of the two debtors indicate that the obligation is solidary.)

so as a general rule, the absence under the expressed stipulation between the parties the liability of the debtors, if
there is propriety of debtors, will only be joint. there must be an expressed stipulation if the liability is solidary,
unless, aside from stipulation, the law itself provides for solidarity or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity
or the decision of the court makes the liability of the parties solitary.

1209 and 1210 refers to indivisibility that there is a propriety of parties, it is a joint indivisible obligation.
indivisibility does not mean solidarity nor does solidarity implies indivisibility.

indivisibility refers to the nature of the object or the presentation or the performance of the obligation whereby it is
not susceptible of partial performance.

so we go to article 1211 that the solidary nature of the obligation still exist even if the parties thereto are not bound
in the same manner, and in the same periods and same conditions.

the example that i gave you where there is this condition which is suspensive, there is this term or period, and there
is this resolutory condition. so any of the solidary debtors will be made to comply with the conditions towards the
share of the debtor whose share will only be liable upon the happening of the suspensive condition. but if it is one
with the resolutory condition, then it is immediately demandable.

likewise if there is a term or a period, the period is in the benefit of either the debtor or creditor, and if it is with the
debtor, the debtor will comply with the obligation even if there is yet the period is yet to come. so that will depend
on the terms. whether it is for… remember (1164*)?… the benefit of the solidary debtor and the solidary creditor.

now one of the prohibitions in the solidary obligation is the prohibition to assign the share of the credits, unless there
is the other creditor’s consent. any assignment without the consent of the other creditors would mean that it is

thus payment made to a third person to whom part of the solidary creditor’s share in the credit, shall not extinguish
the obligation. In fact, the debtor upon whom demand is made still be held liable for the same obligation because
there is no extinguishment by reason of the assignment which was not consented to by the other solidary creditors.
the purpose of this prohibition is there is this violation of mutual trust and confidence which exists among the
solidary creditors. that’s the reason why there is that prohibition to another person who is not part of the parties to a
solidary obligation, even heirs.

now 1214. the debtor may pay anyone of the solidary creditors; but if any demand whether judicial or extrajudicial,
has been made by one of them, payment shall be made to him.

however, if one solidary creditor would demand performance from one of the solidary debtors, performance shall
only be made to the creditor who made the demand. that debtor upon whom demand is made cannot choose to which
creditor shall perform the obligation. while the other debtors where no demand is made may deliver the object or
prestation to any of the solidary creditors including that solidary creditor who made the demand upon a particular
solidary debtor and if accepted by the said solidary creditor, there is extinguishment of the obligation.

the prohibition only refers to the solidary debtor upon whom demand is made because that mutual exists among
solidary creditors is invoked and now concentrated on the solidary creditor who made the demand.

there is remission, but there was already payment prior to the remission. that debtor whose debt has been remitted is
still liable with respect to his obligation to reimburse the solidary debtor who made the payment. if there is partial
collection on one of the solidary creditors, he is still under obligation to share whatever has been collected with the
other solidary creditors even if the same is insufficient to cover his share in the credit. because of the mutual trust
and agency. and if one of the solidary debtors is insolvent, then the other debtor’s share shall be increased

and if the entire obligation is remitted by any of the solidary creditors, that debtor whos favor the remission is made,
is not entitled to demand any reimbursement from the other debtors.

in art. 1221, there is lost of the object which is determinate, then the obligation is extinguished.

but if there is impairment and there is fault on the part of one of the solidary debtors, and has incurred delay, that
solidary debtor who is at fault and who is in delay shall be liable for the entire interest and damages. but the price is
equally shared by all the solidary debtors.

if there is loss, and the fault is on one of the solidary debtors, and he has incurred delay, then he would shoulder all
the price, damages, and interest leaving the other solidary debtors free from any liability.

1222 on defenses, the solidary debtor upon whom demand is made can invoke the defenses that are personal solidary
debtors, but only to relieve that solidary debtor who has that personal defense.

however if the debtor upon whom demand is made has his own defenses then he can invoke, but only to insolve his
share of the debt, not the entire obligation.

joint indivisible obligation

indivisibility refers to the object or the prestation, as well as the performance of the obligation. it may be susceptible
of partial performance but by expressed stipulation of the parties. it shall be performed by all because
nonperformance by one, is nonperformance by all.

it is merely converted into the payment for damages, that shall be equally shared by the joint indivisible debtors.

obligations to do, in the absence of stipulation to the contrary, shall be indivisible.

Question: was it in this class that questioned about caltex?

(mr. sales inaudible)

“despite the waiver..the court cannot appreciate the complaint filed by the petitioners because it is barred by prior
judgment. do you remember? initially filed the complaint in the US Court. it was dismissed because they do not
have jurisdiction over it, so what they did, they filed it to our courts. it was dismissed. they did not appeal or file a
motion for reconsideration for that dismissal thus the decision of the dismissal became final and executory.

it may be true that caltex had waived its right to invoke the defense of prescription,but because it was already
disbarred by a prior judgment that dismissed the original petition of the respondents in this case, it will no longer
entertained by the court.

sales: inaudible
ah yung final judgment? okay. hindi… kase there was already judgment rendered by the court… ganito yun siya.
mag file ka ng kaso….

-end of my part-

..(10.01) but the price can be equally shared by all the solidary debtors but if there is loss and the fault is on one of
the solidary debtors then his already incurred in delay then he will shoulder all the price, damages and interest
leaving the other solidary debtors free from any liability.

Art 1222 on defenses, the solidary debtor upon who demand is made may invoke the defenses that are personal to
the other solidary debtors but only to relieve that solidary debtor who has that personal defense however if the
debtor upon who demand is made has his own defenses and he can invoke not only to absolve his share in the debt
not the entire obligation.

And of course we go to joint and divisible obligation, indivisibility would refer to the object of the prestation as well
as the performance of the obligation it may be susceptible of partial performance but by express stipulation of the
parties, it is indivisible the it is an invincible obligation. It shall be performed by all because non-performance by
one is non-performance by all, it is already converted in the payment for damages that shall be equally shared by the
joint indivisible debtors.

Obligations to do in the absences of any stipulations to the contrary shall be indivisible.


Ma’am Galas: uhmm the cases unless you have questions? Was it in this class the question about Caltex? Awh
anong ano mo Mr. Sales anong question mo sa Caltex? Hindi yun prescription ah the defense of prescription, the
waiver of the defense of prescription. But despite the waiver by Caltex, the court cannot appreciate the complaint
filed by the petitioners because it is barred by prior judgement you remember? Initially they filed that complaint
before the court in the United States. It was dismissed because it has no jurisdiction over it so what they did is to file
that before our courts, it was dismissed they did not appeal or file a motion for reconsideration of that dismissal
thus the decision of the dismissal became final and executory. So there was that prior judgement so while it may be
true that Caltex had waived its right to invoke the defense of prescription but because there was already this bar by
a prior judgement that dismissed the original petition of the respondents in this case then it could no longer be
entertained by the court.

Mr. Sales: Ma’am how about the prescription of 10 years? Yun 10 years gud man yun final judgement

Ma’am Galas: Ai yung final judgement okay, hindi kasi there was the judgement rendered by the court. Hindi ito
yun siya halimbawa nag file ka ng kaso tapos saan case nga yun inano sa inyo? Yun gani 20 years bago niya inano
the barred na siya you remembered that case that I assigned, they could no longer seek oyy yun criminal case yun
tatay niya pinatay (background voice: sa persons) ha? Yun tatay niya pinatay then there was this judgement
rendered in favor of the heirs but it took the heirs more than 20 years before they sought the enforcement of the you
remembered that? So kasi ganito yan Mr. Sales, halimbawa yun filed a case against me and the court decided on
your favor you should already you have and then you did not appeal so the decision has become final and executory
but if you did not or your lawyer you did not file this motion of issuance of a writ or execution, kasi yun writ of
execution is the will that would now move for purposes of satisfying the judgement award so kung wala yan siya and
then that is actually under the rules of court meron kang 10 years kasi baka magkaroon ng stained judgement so
after 20 years hindi mo na siya pwede eenforce. Nagkaroon na ng dismissal walang jurisdiction nga eh so this case
is dismissed tapos binalik nila dito sabi ng court dismiss kasi nagprescribe na yun action but 13 years na after they
filed the petition for recovery of damages but sabi ng Caltex may be the Caltex has also acknowledged they have
liability over those lives that were lost so they waive their right to invoke the defense of prescription but they did not
immediately file that motion of reconsideration dismissing the initial complaint by reason of prescription, they
allowed it to lapse so nagging final and executory na siya. You cannot sleep on your right, kasi binalik nila sa
America remember? Galling ditto inulit nila binalik nila yun sa America kasi they are trying to get a higher amount
of the damages because I remember yun plane na nagcrash ditto sa Samal those who pursued their case here in the
Philippines received about how many millions of pesos lang 1 or 2 million but yun nagpursue sa US they received
2.5 million dollars, they sued the manufacturer of the plane that crashed kasi yun plane na yun was only leased by
PAL anong yun isang pal noon? Ah AirPhil! That was only leased by airphil from a company in the United States
yung iba pinursue nila yun sa Airphil, so yun kanila is at about 1.5 million, 2.5 million pesos pero yun iba they
pursued it sa US and gisue nila yun manufacturer ng plane so they were able to receive 2.5 million so yun yun
siguro ginawa ng mga heirs dun mga victims ng Dona Paz. So they allowed the decision here dismissing the
complaint to lapse tapos dinimiss ulit bumalik na naman sila so barred by prior judgement.

Sa Pacific Banking, do you have any more questions?

Pacific Banking - it is not the title of the document that provide the parties other that what is stipulated and in as
much as the husband bound himself to be solidary liable to the obligation of the wife thus it is solidary and not a
mere guarantor.

Industrial Management – initially it was a joint obligation for NLRC decision but in the first writ of the execution
nothing was said about the liability of the private respondents but when so this was returned and satisfied
subsequently another writ of execution was issued this time the tenor of the liability of the private respondents have
become solidary. The insertion of the word “and/or”.

Mariveles as well as Light Trail – this is based on the law of the labor code where the indirect employer is solidarily
liable with the direct employer.

So Construction Development – by the nature or the provision/law? (background voice: provision,nature,breach of

contract) anong breach of contract hindi man yan breach of contract….

____________End of Day 4 10:00:00 - 20:01:00______________

Yulim: They executed a Continuing Surety Agreement. There was no payment through assignment, because the
Deed of Assignment was subject to the requirement of painting the condo unit and subsequently executed a Deed of
Mortgage that was delivered to the bank. It was actually a security and not a payment.

Sinamban: Co-maker of PNs

Lam vs Kodak: The nature of the stipulation of the agreement was a joint and indivisible obligation. Thus, the
obligation was to deliver the entire package.