University of the Philippines

COLLEGE OF LAW

OBLIGATION AND CONTRACTS

Course Outline

Prof. R. D. Morales 2nd Sern., 2004-05

Reference Book Tolentino Vol IV, other Commentaries on t he Civil Code

Definition and Concept

A. Definition
A. 1156 in relation to Art. 2236

B Distinguished from natural obligation

Art. 1156 in relation to 1423

C. Elements

D. Sources of Obligation
Art 1157 — 1162
Sagrada Ordenvs Nacoco, 91 Phi!. 503
Pelayo vs Lauron, 12 Phil. 44—or 4-93 Leung
Ben vs. O'Brien, 38 Phil. 182
People's Car vs. Commando Security, 51 SCRA 40
Pichel vs Alonzo, 111 SCRA 341
Del Rio vs. Palanca, 83 Phil. 867
People vs Ritter, 194 SCRA 690
Andamo vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 195
Federation of Free Farmers vs. CA, GR L-41161, Sept. 10, 1981
Brings vs. The People, G.R. No. L-30309. November 25, 1983
Tan vs. Nitafan, G.R. No. 76965. March 11, 1994
People vs. Abungan, G.R. No. 136843. September 28, 2000

ii. Nature and Effects of Obligation

A. Obligation to give

Determine Thing
Art 1460. 1163 — 1 -165

Equatorial vs Mayfair. G R. No. 106063. November 21. 1996

De Leon vs. Soriano. [G R No. L-2724 August
I 24 1950
t-
,~ari R4tc~ v CK No
 Generic Thing
Art, 11460, 1165, 1246

Norkis vs CA, G. .R No 91029, Februar y 7, 1991-

Phil. Long Distance Co. vs. Jeturian, 97 Phil. 78
N"
3 Effect of Loss
Art. 1262, 1263

Bunge Corp. vs. Cannenforte , G P. No L-4440 August 29, 1952 1 -

Occena vs Jabson. 73 SCRA 637

Obligation to do

Art. 1167, 1244 par 2,

Ha hn v s . CA G . N o L -5 53 72 . May 3 1 , 1 98 9
Chaves vs. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547
Occena vs. Jabson, ibid.
Woodhouse vs. Halili, 93 Phil. 526
ft
C. Obligation not to do Art.
1168, 1244 par 2 Ip "Js -4r'

D. Effect of breach

1. Delay in performance
Art. 1 165, 1169,1262

Villaruel vs. Manila Motor, 104 Phil. 926

Lopez vs Tan Tioco, 8 Phil. 926
Dela Rosa vs. BPI, 51 Phil. 926
Lizares vs. Hernaez, 40 Phil. 98
Bachrach Motor Co. vs. Lee Tay, 90 Phil 540
Lawyers Coop. Pub. vs. Tabora, 13 SCRA 762
Equatorial vs. Mayfair, 11)1d.
Cc vs. CA, GR 124922, June 22, 1998 - --
Aerospace vs. CA, GR 108129, Sept. 23, 1999-

Non-fulfillment
Art 1165, 1167, 1168, 1170
Chavez vs. Gonzales, supra
Teiefast vs. Castro. 158 SCRA 445
Tanguiling Vs. CA, GR 117190, Jan. 2, 1997 -
Perez vs. CA, GR No 107737, Oct. 1, 1999 -

__3 --Fraud
Art 117,2'- 1173
Board of Liquidators vs Heirs of Maximo Kalavv 20 SCRA 987

11,
 lCB vs. Gueco, GR 141968, Feb. 12, 2001
Negligence
Art. 1172 – 1173
.I Necessito vs Paras, GR L 10605-06, June 30, 1958
5 Convention of the tenor of the obligation
Arrieta vs. Noric, 10 SCRA 79
I-
Chavez vs. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547

E Effect of fortuitous event

Art 1174
Necesito vs. Paras. ibid.
tr A m 92
pang vs. Guinco, 91 Phil 1085
Victorian Planters vs. Victorian Milling, 97 Phi! 18
La Mallorca vs. De JesuO, 17 SCRA 23
Nakpil vs. CA, 144 SCRA 696
Austria vs. CA, 39 SCRA 527
Vasquez vs. CA, 138 SCRA 553

F- Usurious transactions

Art. 1175,- R.A. No. 2655

Angel Jose Warehousing Co. vs. Chelda, 23 SCRA 119
Briones vs. Cammayo, 41 SCPA 404
G. Presumption of interest and installments
Art. 1 176, 1253

Hill vs. Veloso, 31 Phil. 160

Vda. De Ongsiako vs. Cabatuando, 105 Phil. 1262

H. Action Subrogation
Arts. 1177 – 1178

G o ld s t a r M in in g v s. L i m Ji me n a , 2 5 S C RA 5 9 7
Estate of Hernandez vs. Luzon Surety, 100 Phil 388

Ill. Kinds of Obligation

A. Pure and conditional obligations

Pure obligations
Art 1179
Pay vs. Palance, 57 SCRA 618

Conditional obligations
a with suspensive,' resolutory conditions
Art 1181, 1187, 1190
X Lichauco vs Figueras-Hermanos. 7 Phil 383
Wise & Co vs Kelly, G R No. L- 11073 February 21, 1918
 //Santiago vs. Millar, 68 Phil. 39
arks vs. Prov. of Tarlac, 49 Phil. 142
'Of u ', - CA C.K [ tD - t k,)Am duly vi 1946
b. pot e s t '-' t tve " mix - e ' c&n cl i lio * 19q Sq )" A • 'aS t 2'00(
Art. 1182

,9 otwell vs. Manila Motor, G.R. No. L-7637. December 29, 1956
,Stith Bell s. Sotelo Matti, 44 Phil. 874

liana vs. Quezon Colleges, 93 Phil. 383

smena vs. Rama, 14 Phil. 99
Hermosa vs Longara. 93 Phil, 971
Impossible and illicit conditions
Art. 1183
u neta Motor Co. vs. Abad, 67 Phi!, Z-3L
q C
A\aY)j . A CV, No. S0(04 [ -5 Vm - 5 nR-6 d.
positive and negative conditions
Art. 1184-85
3. Constructive fulfillment
Art. 1186
aylor vs. Uy Tieng, 43 Phil. 760
er ra, vs. Leviste, G.R. No. 55744. February 28, 1985
-yag vs. CA, G.R. No. 96053. March 3, 1993
U M I RVA q • CA , GV, No . to 3 5~~ 04. , 19% _ •
y
Retroactivit , of obligation
Art 1187
"adilla vs. Paterno, 3 SCRA 678
6ronel vs. CA, G.R. No. 103577. October 7, 1996

5. Preservation of creditor's rights

Art. 1188
6. Rescission
1491,
in reciprocal obligations
A
1192
ego vs. Interbank, 37 Phil. 631
Albert vs. University Publishing, G.R. No. L-9300. April 18, 1958
"~OP vs. Delos Angeles, 33 SCRA 102
,Roque vs. Lapuz, G.R. 32811, March 31, 1980
Fera vs. Leviste G.R. No. 55744. February 28, 1985 ueta
vs. Mariano, 111 SCRA 206 eIrta Motor Corp vs. Gentino,
170 SCRA 29 B Obligatjonc w ti7 h .9 period
Ar-t 1180, 1193 - 1198
'XPN3 vs Lopes Vito, 84 Phil. 542
Smyth Bell vs. Matti, supra
Gait-- vs. Fonacier. 2 SCRA 830
vs CA. 66 SCRA 523
,r,miento vs. Villasenor, 43 Phil 880
,aa'guhoy Enterprises vs Ponce. 96 Phil 15
 Victorias Planter, supra.
& Leon vs. Syjuco, 90 Phi[ 311
1
4illare vs. Hernando, 151 SCRA 484
'.)<P cific Banking Corp. vs. CA, 73 SCRA 102
ng Fo vs. Oria, 33 Phil 3

C Alternative and facultative obligations

.Art. 1199 – 1206
Agoncillo vs. Javier, 38 Phil. 424
Ong Guan Can vs Century, 46 Phil 592

D. Joint and solidary

Art. 1207 – 1222
,jz(ucl;an vs. Quer-ol, 38 Phil 707
)(amos vs. Gibbon, 67 Phil 371
,Versoza vs. Lim, 45 Phil 416
R(' )nquillo vs. CA, 132 SCRA 274
iz vs. Cayanon, 92 SCRA 146
Aerial Insurance vs. David, 133 SCRA 317
Aghausti vs. Yulo, 34 Phil. 978 P I v s .
M c C o y , 5 2 P h i l 8 3 1 Wilson
vs. Berkenkotter, 49 O.G. 1410
inese Chamber of Commerce vs. Pua Te Ching, 16 Phil 406

D. Divisibfe and indivisible obligation

Art. 1223 – 1225

D. Obligation with a penal clause

Art. 1226 – 12-30
nila Racing vs. Manila Jockey, 69 Phil 55
I ridad Est. vs. Santero, 71 Phil. 114
,8pchrach Motors vs. Espiritu, 52 Phil 346
~abarroguis vs. Vicente, 107 Phil 340
XLambert vs. Fox, 26 Phil 558
Vodges vs. Javellana, 4 SCRA 1228 Ramintuan
vs. CA, 94 SCRA 556 -FZ'obes-Francisco Realty
vs. CFJ, 86 SCRA 59
"ati Dev. Corp. vs. Empire Insurance Co., 20 SCRA 557
Umali vs. Miclat, 105 Phil 1007-
 University of the Philippines
C O L L E G E O F L A W

OBLIGATION AND CONTRACTS

Course Outline Part II

Prof. R. D. Morales 2" d Sem., 2006-07

IV. EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS

General Provisions: Art. 1231

(a) Payment Arts. 1232

- 1261

Arrieta v. National Rice and Corn Corp., 10 SCRA 79-,

Kalalo v. Luz, 34 SCRA 337-,
Pacific Timber v. Macondray, 101 SCRA 685 McLaughlin vs.
CA, [G.R. No. L-57552. Oct. 10; 1986- Tibajia vs. CA,
G.R. No. 100290. June 4, 1993=4
Esguerra vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-23191. December 19, 1967.-~
Tolentino vs. CA, G.R. No. 50405-06. August 5, 1981
Filinvest Credit vs. Phil Acetylene., G.R. No. L-50449. January 30, 1982.'
Legaspi vs. CA, G.R. No. L-45510. May 27, 1986 Hahn vs. CA, G.R. No.
L-55372. May 31, 1989 - Baritua vs. CA, G.R. No. 82233. March 22, 1990
Aquino vs. CA, G.R. No. 91896. Nov. 21, 1991 -4 XRiesenbeck vs. CA, G.R.
No. 903E9. June 9, 1992

Caltex vs. 1AC, G.R. No. 72703. Nov. 13, 1992 , Sangrador vs. Sps.
Valderrama,G.R. No. 79552. Nov. 29, 1988
(b) Loss Arts. 1262
-1269

Occena v. Jabson, 73 SCRA 637 -' ' , PNCC

vs. CA, G.R. No. 116896. May 5, 1997--t

(c) Condonation or Remission

Arts. 1270 - 1274

Trans-Pacific vs. CA, G.R. No. 109172. Aug: 19, 1994:

(d) Confusion or Merger

Arts. 1275 - 1277
Mota vs. Serra, G.R. No. 22825. Feb. 14, 1925 Enriquez

vs. Ranola, G.R. No. 40908. Sept. 8, •1934

(e) Compensation Arts.
1278 - 1290

Gan Tion v. CA, 28 SCRA 235 -4

PNB vs. Acero, G.R. No. L-69255. Feb. 27, 1987--0
CKH vs. CA, G.R. No. 111890. May 7, 11997-o
Pioneer insurance vs. CA, G.R. No. 76509. Dec. 15, 1989
" . ..BPI vs. CA, G.R. No. 116792. March 29_1996
Orata vs. IAC, G.R. No. 73471. May 8, 1990

(f) Novation
Arts. 1291 - 1304

Millar v. CA, 38 SCRA 642

Dormitorio v. Fernandez, 72 SCRA 388
Zapanta vs. De Rotaeche, G.R. No. 6910. Jan. 9, 1912
Tiu Siuco vs. Habana, G.R. No. 21106. Feb. 21, 1924
Guerrero vs. CA, G.R. No. L-22366. Oct. 30, 1969 -
andico vs. Timbol, G.R. No. L-26115. Nov.
Garcia, Jr. vs. CA, G.R. No. 80201. Nov. 20, 1990
Ligutan vs. De La Llana, G.R. No. 138677. Feb. 12, 2002-
Broadway Centrum vs. Tropical Food, G.R. No. 79642. July 5, 1993

g) Other causes:
BPI vs. Boston Bank, [G.R. No. 94676. Sept. 30, 1992 Ace-Agro
Development vs. CA, G.R. No 119729. Jan. 221, 1907

CON TRACTS

GEN ERAL PROVISIONS

Arts. 1305 - 1317

Cui v. Arellano, 2 SCRA 205

Talisay-Silay Inc. vs.Talisay-Silay Milling, G.R.. L-19937. Feb. 19, 1979
Batchelder vs. C,$, G.R. No. L-25071. March 29, 1972
Asuncion vs. CA, G.R. No. 109125. Dec. 2, 1994 -- - tAwl

2. ESSENTIAL REQUISITES
Arts. 1318 - 1355

Sanchez v. Rigos, 45 SCRA 368

Hill v. Veloso, 31 Phil 161
Asuncion vs. CA, supra.
Mapalo vs. Mapalo, G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628. May'! 9,,1968,;-
Sps. Santos. vs. CA, G.R. No. 120820. August 1, 2000
II

Santos vs. Heirs of Villanueva, G.R. No. 143325. October 24, 2000
MMDA vs. Jancom, G.R. No. 147465. Jan. 30, 2002
Palma vs. Canizares, G.R. No. 34. Dec. 31, 1902
Dumez vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 82340. Aug. 12, 1991
Somoso vs. CA, G.R. No. 78050. October 23, 1989
- J?
 Yuvienco vs. Dalcoycoy, G.R. No L-55048 May 27, 1981

FORM O F CON TRACTS

Arts. 1356 – 1358
--
Aj'tsS
Pernaez v. Delos Angeles, 27 SCRA 1276
Alano vs. Barbara. G.R. No. L-4274. March 23, 1908

REFO RMATIO N OF INS TRUMEN TS

Arts 1359 – 13690

Atilano v. Atilano, 28 SCRA 231

Investor Finance Corp. v. CA, 193 SCRA 547

INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS
Arts. 1370 – 1379

Borromeo v. CA, 47 SCRA 65

Lim Yhi Luya vs. CA, G.R. No. L-40258, Sept. 11, 1980
Rivera Filipino vs. CA, G.R. No. 117355. April 5, 2002 -

D EFECTIV E CON TRACTS

(a) Rescissible Contracts

Arts. 1380 – 1389

UFC v. CA, 33 SCRA 1

Equatorial vs. Mayfair, ibid.
Guman, Bocaling vs. Bonnevie, G.R. No. 86150. March 2, 1992

(a) Voidable Contracts

Arts. 1390 – 1402

Uy Soo Lin v. Tan Uno.huan, 38 Phil 552

Sps. Theis vs. CA, G.R. No. 126013. February 12, 1997
Rural Bank of Caloocan vs. Desiderio, G.R. No. L-32116. April
21, 1981
MWSS vs. CA, G.R. No. 126000. October 7, 1998
MWSS vs. Lopez , , G.R. No. 128520. October 7, 1998
-YSps. Guiang vs. CA. G.R. No. 125172. June 26,1998

(b) Unenforceable Contracts

Arts. 1403 – 1408

Yovienco case, ibid.

Coronet vs. Constantino, G.R. No. 121069. February 7, 2003
Regal Films vs. Concepcion, G.R. No 139532, August 9, 2001
NPC vs. National Merchandising, G.R. Nos. L-33819 and L-
33897. October 23, 1982
Land, vs. CA, G.R. No. 125531. February 12, 1997
 Cenido vs.Apacionado. G.R. No. 132474. Nov. 19, 1999
V illanueva vs. CIA G.R. No. 107624. January 28, 1997
(d) Void or Inexistent Contracts

A rt s. 14 09 14 22

''AIN

Ll_qtleZ v. CA, 102 Phil

Rellosa v. Gaw Ghee Hun, 93 Phil. 827
Phil. Banking Corp. v. Lui Sheh, 21 SCRA 52
Francisco vs. Herrera. G.R. No. 139982. November 21, 2002
Agars vs. PIATCO. G.R. No. 155001. May 5,2003_-

V. NATURAL OBLIGATIONS

Arts. 1423 - 1430

V I. ESTOPPEL

Arts 1431 - 1439

Kalalo v. Luz, ibid.

Dela Cruz v. Paraz, 69 SCRA 556
Miguel v. Catalino , 26 SCRA 234
Manila Lodge No., 761 v. CA, 73 SCRA 168
%./co vs. BA ~-,' ance, G.R. No. 71694, August 16, 199'
rI August I

V . T R U S T S Arts.
1440 - 1457

Salao v. Salao, 70 SCRA 65

Fabian v. Fabian, 22 SCRA 231
Bueno v. Reyes, 27 SCRA 1179
Tamayo v. Callejo, 46 SCRA 27-
Mindanao Dev. Authority vs. CA, G.R. No. L-49087. April 5, 1982
Tala Realty vs. Banco Filipino, G.R. No. 137533. November 22, 2002

V II . QUASI-CONTRACTS • A rt s.

2 14 2 - 2 17 5