Bar Q and A #25

1.) Butch got a loan from Hagibis Corporation (Hagibis) but he defaulted in the payment. A case for collection of a sum of money was filed against him. As a defense, Butch claims that there was already an arrangement with Hagibis on the payment of the loan. To implement the same, Butch already surrendered five (5) service utility vehicles (SUVs) to the company for it to sell and the proceeds to be credited to the loan as payment. Was the obligation of Butch extinguished by reason of dacion en pago upon the surrender of the SUVs? Decide and explain.

No, the obligation of Butch to Hagibis was not extinguished by the mere surrender of the SUV’s to the latter. Dation in payment, whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money, shall be governed by the law on sales. (Art. 1245) In dacion en pago, as a special mode of payment, the debtor offers another thing to the credtor who accepts it as equivalent of payment of an outstanding debt. The undertaking really partakes in one sense of the nature of sale, that is, the creditor is really buying

the thing or property of the debtor, payment for which is to be charged against the debtor’s debt. As such, the essential elements of a contract of sale, namely, consent, object certain, and cause or consideration must be present. In dacion en pago, there is in reality an objective novation of the obligation where the thing offered as an accepted equivalent of the performance of an obligation is considered as the object of the contract of sale, while the debt is considered as the purchase price. In any case, common consent is an essential prerequisite, be it sale or innovation to have the effect of totally extinguishing the debt or obligation. (Filinvest Credit Corporation v. Philippine Acetylene Company, G.R. No. L-50449, January 30, 1982) There being no mention in the facts that Hagibis has given its consent to accept the SUCs as equivalent payment, the obligation of Butch is not thereby extinguished be mere delivery of the SUVs.

2.) Jerico, the project owner, entered into a Construction Contract with Ivan for the latter to construct his house. Jojo executed a Surety undertaking to guarantee the performance of the work by Ivan. Jerico and Ivan later entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) revising the work schedule of Ivan and the subcontractors. The MOA stated that all the stipulations of the original contract not in conflict with said agreement shall remain valid and legally effective. Jojo filed a suit to declare him relieved of his undertaking as a result of the MOA because of the change in the work schedule. Jerico claims there is no novation of the Construction Contract. Decide the case and explain.

I will decide in favor of Jerico as there is no novation of the Construction Contract. Novation is never presumed, and may only take place when the following are present: (1) a previous valid obligation; (2) the agreement of all the parties to the new contract; (3) the extinguishment of the old contract; (4) validity of the new one. There must be consent of all the parties to the substitution, resulting in the extinction of the old obligation and the creation of a new valid one. In this case, the revision of the work schedule of Ivan and the subcontractors is not shown to be so substantial as to extinguish the old contract, and there was also no irreconcilable incompatibility between the old and new obligations. It has also been held in jurisprudence that a surety may only be relieved of his undertaking if there is a material change in the principal contract and such would make the obligation of the surety onerous. The principal contract subject of the surety agreement still exists, and Jojo is still bound as a surety.

3.) A, B, C, D and E made themselves solidarity indebted to X for the amount of P50,000.00. When X demanded payment from A, the latter refused to pay on the following grounds: a) B is only 16 years old. b) C has already been condoned by X. c) D is insolvent. d) E was given by X an extension of 6 months without the consent of the other four co-debtors. State the effect of each of the above defenses put up by A on his obligation to pay X, if such defenses are found to be true.

a) A may avail the minority of B as a defense, but only for B’s share of P 10,000.00. A solidary debtor may avail himself of any defense which personally belongs to a solidary co-debtor, but only as to the share of that co-debtor.

b) A may avail of the condonation by X of C’s share of P 10, 000.00. A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are derived from the nature of the obligation and of those which are personal to him or pertain to his own share. With respect to those which personally belong to others, he may avail himself thereof only as regards that part of the debt for which the latter are responsible (Art. 1222).

c) A may not interpose the defense of insolvency of D as a defense. Applying the principle of mutual guaranty among solidary debtors, A guaranteed the payment of D’s share and of all the other co-debtors. Hence, A cannot avail of the defense of D’s insolvency.

d) The extension of six (6) months given by X to E may be availed of by A as a partial defense but only for the share of E, there is no novation of the obligation but only an act of liberality granted to E alone.

4.) True or False The renunciation by a co-owner of his undivided share in the co-owned property in lieu of the performance of his obligation to contribute to taxes and expenses for the preservation of the property constitutes dacion en pago.

TRUE. Under the Civil Code, a co-owner may renounce his share in the co-owned property in lieu of paying for his share in the taxes and expenses for the preservation of the co-owned property. In effect, there is dacion en pago because the co-owner is discharging his monetary obligation by paying it with his non- monetary interest in the co-owned property. The fact that he is giving up his entire interest simply means that he is accepting the value of his interest as equivalent to his share in the taxes and expenses of preservation.

5.) Define compensation as a mode of extinguishing an obligation, and distinguish it from payment.

Compensation is a mode of extinguishing to the concurrent amount, the obligations of those persons who in their own right are reciprocally debtors and creditors of each other. (Tolentino, 1991 ed., p. 365, citing 2 Castan 560 and Francia v. IAC, 162 SCRA 753) It involves the simultaneous balancing of two obligations in order to extinguish them to the extent in which the amount of one is covered by that of the other. (De Leon, 1992, ed., p. 221, citing 8 Manresa 401)

Payment means not only delivery of money but also performance of an obligation. (Article 1232, Civil Code) In payment, capacity to dispose of the thing paid and capacity to receive payment are required for debtor and creditor, respectively: in compensation, such capacity is not necessary, because the compensation operates by law and not by the act of the parties. In payment, the performance must be complete, while in compensation there may be partial extinguishment of an obligation (Tolentino, supra).

6.) Felipe borrowed $100 from Gustavo in 1998, when the Phil P - US$ exchange rate was P56 - US$1. On March 1, 2008, Felipe tendered to Gustavo a cashier's check in the amount of P4,135 in payment of his US$ 100 debt, based on the Phil P - US$ exchange rate at that time. Gustavo accepted the check, but forgot to deposit it until Sept. 12, 2008. His bank refused to accept the check because it had become stale. Gustavo now wants Felipe to pay him in cash in the amount of P5,600. Claiming that the previous payment was not in legal tender, and that there has been extraordinary deflation since 1998, and therefore, Felipe should pay him the value of the debt at the time it was incurred. Felipe refused to pay him again, claiming that Gustavo is estopped from raising the issue of legal tender, having accepted the check in March, and that it was Gustavo's negligence in not depositing the check immediately that caused the check to become stale. a) Can Gustavo now raise the issue that the cashier's check is not legal tender? b) Can Felipe validly refuse to pay Gustavo again? c) Can Felipe compel Gustavo to receive US$100 instead?

a) No, because Gustavo is guilty of estoppel by laches. He led Felipe to believe he could pay by cashier’s check, and Felipe relied that such cahier’s check would be encashed thus extinguishing his obligation. Because of Gustavo’s inaction of more than six months the check became stale and Felipe will be prejudiced if he will be required to pay $100 at the exchange rate of P56 to $1.00. The exchange should be the rate at the time of payment.

b) Yes, if the payment is valid. Since the bank considered the cashier’s check as being stale for not having been encashed on time, then the cahsier’s check may be issued again. At any rate, non-payment of teh amount to Gustavo would constitute unjust enrichment.

c) Yes, Felipe can compel Gustavo to pay US$100 instead. Under the prior law, RA 529, as amended by R.A.4100, payment can only be in Philippine currency as it would be against publich policy, null and void and of no effect. However, under RA8183, payment may be made in the currency agreed upon by the parties, and the rate of exchange to be followed is at the time of payment. (C.F. Sharp & Co. Inc. vs. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 381 SCRA 314 [2002])

7.) X, who has a savings deposit with Y Bank in the sum of P1,000,000.00, incurs a loan obligation with the said Bank in the sum of P800,000.00 which has become due. When X tries to withdraw his deposit, Y Bank allows only P200,000.00 to be withdrawn, less service charges, claiming that compensation has extinguished its obligation under the savings account to the concurrent amount of X’s debt. X contends that compensation is improper when one of the debts, as here, arises from a contract of deposit. Assuming that the promissory note signed by X to evidence the loan does not provide for compensation between said loan and his savings deposit, who is correct?

Y bank is correct. Art. 1287, Civil Code, does not apply. All the requisites of Art. 1279, Civil Code are present. In the case of Gullas vs. PNB (62 Phil. 519), the Supreme Court held: “The Civil Code contains provisions regarding compensation (set off) and deposit. These portions of Philippine law provide that compensation shall take place when two persons are reciprocally creditor and debtor of each other. In this connection, it has been held that the relation existing between a depositor and a bank is that of creditor and debtor. xxx As a general rule, a bank has a right of set off of the deposits in its hands for the payment of any indebtedness to it on the part of a depositor.” Hence, compensation took place between the mutual obligations of X and Y bank.

8.) Stockton is a stockholder of Core Corp. He desires to sell his shares in Core Corp. In view of a court suit that Core Corp. has filed against him for damages in the amount of P10 million, plus attorney’s fees of P1 million, as a result of statements published by Stockton which are allegedly defamatory because it was calculated to injure and damage the corporation’s reputation and goodwill. The articles of incorporation of Core Corp. provide for a right of first refusal in favor of the corporation. Accordingly, Stockton gave written notice to the corporation of his offer to sell his shares of P10 million. The response of Core corp. was an acceptance of the offer in the exercise of its rights of first refusal, offering for the purpose payment in form of compensation or set-off against the amount of damages it is claiming against him, exclusive of the claim for attorney’s fees. Stockton rejected the offer of the corporation, arguing that compensation between the value of the shares and the amount of damages demanded by the corporation cannot legally take effect. Is Stockton correct? Give reason for your answer.

Stockton is correct. There is no right of compensation between his price of P10 million and Core Corp.’s unliquidated claim for damages. In order that compensation may be proper, the two debts must be liquidated and demandable. The case for the P10 million damages being still pending in court, the corporation has as yet no claim which is due and demandable against Stockton.

9.) Sarah had a deposit in a savings account with Filipino Universal Bank in the amount of five million pesos (P5,000,000.00). To buy a new car, she obtained a loan from the same bank in the amount of P1,200,000.00, payable in twelve monthly installments. Sarah issued in favor of the bank post-dated checks, each in the amount of P100,000.00, to cover the twelve monthly installment payments. On the third, fourth and fifth months, the corresponding checks bounced. The bank then declared the whole obligation due, and proceeded to deduct the amount of one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) from Sarah’s deposit after notice to her that this is a form of compensation allowed by law. Is the bank correct? Explain.

No, the bank is not correct. While the Bank is correct about the applicability of compensation, it was not correct as to the amount compensated. A bank deposit is a contract of loan, where the depositor is the creditor and the bank the debtor. Since Sarah is also the debtor of the bank with respect to the loan, both are mutually principal

debtors and creditors of each other. Both obligations are due, demandable and liquidated but only up to the extent of P300,000.00 (covering the unpaid third, fourth and fifth monthly installments). The entire one million was not yet due because the loan has no acceleration clause in case of default. And since there is no retention or controversy commenced by third person and communicated in due time to the debtor, then all the requisites of legal compensation are present but only up to the amount of P300,000.00. The bank, therefore, may deduct P300,000.00 from Sarah’s bank deposit by way of compensation.

10.) In 1978, Bobby borrowed P1,000,000.00 form Chito payable in two years. The loan, which was evidenced by a promissory note, was secured by a mortgage on real property. No action was filed by Chito to collect the loan or to foreclose the mortgage. But in 1991, Bobby, without receiving any amount from Chito, executed another promissory note, except for the date thereof, which was the date of its execution. 1) Can Chito demand payment on the 1991 promissory note in 1994? 2) Can Chito foreclose the real estate mortgage if Bobby fails to make good his obligation under the 1991 promissory note?

1) Yes, Chito can demand payment on the 1991 promissory note in 1994. Although the 1978 promissory note for P1 million payable two years later or in 1980 became a natural obligation after the lapse of ten
(10) years, such natural obligation can be a valid consideration of a novated promissory note dated in 1991 and payable two years later, or in1993.

All the elements of an implied real novation are present:
a) An old valid obligation;
b) A new valid obligation;
c) Capacity of the parties;
d) Animus novandi or intention to novate; and
e) The old and the new obligation should be incompatible with each other on all material points (Article 1292). The two promissory notes cannot stand together, hence, the period of prescription of ten (10) years has not yet lapsed.

2) No. The mortgage being an accessory contract prescribed with the loan. The novation of the loan, however, did not expressly include the mortgage, hence, the mortgage is extinguished under Article 1296 of the NCC. The contract has been extinguished by the novation or extinction of the principal obligation insofar as third parties are concerned.