I.

OBLIGATIONS

A. General Provisions (Civil Code, Arts. 1156-1162)

a. Definition

b. Essential Elements

c. Sources of Obligation
i. Law

ii. Contract
a. Dy v. People of the Philippines, GR No. 189081, August 10, 2016

❖ Our law states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
➢ Felony - Violence (more serious). Punishable by imprisonment.
❖ This civil liability ex delicto may be recovered through a civil action which, under our Rules of
Court, is deemed instituted with the criminal action
❖ civil liability ex delicto survives an acquittal in a criminal case for failure to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
➢ civil liability ex delicto - civil liability arising from the offense or ex delicto is based on
the acts or omissions that constitute the criminal offense
➢ Civil cases primarily aim for restitution and compensation for the aggrieved party.
Criminal cases, on the other hand, seek to punish the wrongdoer and deter future
crimes
❖ Rules of Court limits this mandatory fusion to a civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex
delicto.
❖ includes a civil liability arising from a different source of obligation, as in the case of a contract.
❖ Where the civil liability is ex contractu, the court hearing the criminal case has no authority to
award damages.
➢ civil liability ex delicto (arising from a crime) and civil liability ex contractu (arising
from a contract).
—
❖ Petitioner Gloria S. Dy (petitioner) seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA) dated February 25, 2009
➢ ordering her to pay Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) in the amount of
P21,706,281.00

❖ Gloria S. Dy (petitioner) - former General Manager of MCCI.

❖ Si Gloria Dy, yung trabaho niya is to facilitate the business transaction of Mandy Commodities
Company Inc. (MCCI)
➢ This includes a several properties (such as the constructing warehouse on a leased
property from the Philippine National Bank (PNB).)

❖ On May 1996, petitioner proposed to William Mandy, MCCI's President, the acquisition of a
PANTRANCO property,
➢ Since malaki yung halaga na kailangan
 ➢ The president of MCCI agreed to obtain a loan from the International China Bank of
Commerce (ICBC).
❖ Petitioner represented that she could facilitate the approval of the loan.

❖ MCCI secured a P20,000,000.00 loan from the International China Bank of Commerce (ICBC)
➢ evidenced by a promissory note
➢ and secured by a chattel mortgage over the warehouses. (Numancia)
❖ Then yung president of MCCI pinagkatiwala niya kay petitioner the obligation to manage the
payment of the loan.

❖ In February 1999, MCCI received a notice of

❖ foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to
❖ its default in paying the loan obligation.

❖ To prevent the foreclosure, Mandy instructed the petitioner to facilitate the payment of the loan.

❖ So nag issue ng different checks yung MCCI through its president.

❖ All 25 checks issued totalled P21,706,281.00. (katumbas nung utang nila)
➢ 13 Allied Bank checks and 12 Asia Trust Bank checks
➢ All checks are payable to cash (a type of check that can be cashed by the person who
has the check, whether they're the intended recipient or not.)

❖ Pinadala ni Mandy yung checke kay petitioner and he instructed her na gamitin yun para
bayaran yung loan nila.
❖ Pero si petioner kiniclaim niya na inencash niya lng yung checke then binalik niya yun kay
Mandy.
❖ Then yung ICBC, they foreclosed the mortgage property of MCCI kasi di pa rin sila
nakakabayad ng loan.
❖ Then si Mandy kiniclaim niya na dun niya lng din nalaman na hindi naibayad yung checke.

❖ MCCI filed a Complaint-Affidavit for Estafa against Dy.

❖ The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila acquitted Dy on November 11, 2005, due to
insufficient evidence of misappropriation or conversion.
➢ Hindi din kasi naproved na obligation ni petitioner na ipadala yung cash sa ICBC and
inadmit din ng MCCI na binigay niya yung checke kay petitioner with an agreement na
ieencash niya yun. Then si Dy babayaran niya yung ICBC using her own check.

❖ The trial court further made a finding that Mandy and petitioner entered into a contract of
loan.[13] Thus, it held that the prosecution failed to establish an important element of the
crime of estafa—misappropriation or conversion.

❖ Despite the acquittal of Dy, the court ordered her to pay the amount of the checks. (Civilly
liable pa din siya)

❖ CA: The petitioner argue na since acquitted siya sa kaso sa kaniya na stafa, there was
therefore no crime committed.
➢ As there was no crime, any civil liability ex delicto cannot be awarded.
 ❖ ISSUE (HELD): Does petitioner should still be civilly liable for the crime of estafa when she has
already been acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements of estafa? (NO)

❖ In cases where the accused is acquitted on the ground that there is no crime, the civil action
deemed instituted with the criminal case cannot prosper precisely because there is no delict
from which any civil obligation may be sourced.

❖ Elements of estafa (RPC Art. 315):

➢ (1) That the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of
deceit; and
➢ (2) That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended
party or third person.

❖ This is necessarily so because whenever the court makes a finding that the elements of estafa
do not exist, it effectively says that there is no crime. There is no act or omission that constitutes
criminal fraud. Civil liability ex delicto cannot be awarded as it cannot be sourced from
something that does not exist.

❖ Estafa vs. Contract of Loan

❖ When the court finds that the source of obligation is in fact, a contract, as in a contract of loan,
it takes a position completely inconsistent with the presence of estafa.
❖ In estafa, a person parts with his money because of abuse of confidence or deceit. In a
contract, a person willingly binds himself or herself to give something or to render some
service.
❖ In estafa, the accused's failure to account for the property received amounts to criminal fraud.
In a contract, a party's failure to comply with his obligation is only a contractual breach. Thus,
any finding that the source of obligation is a contract negates estafa.
❖ The finding, in turn, means that there is no civil liability ex delicto.

❖ DISPOSITIVE: Petition GRANTED. CA decision REVERSED. This is however, without prejudice

to any civil action which may be filed to claim civil liability arising from the contract [of loan, in
this case].

iii. Quasi-Contracts
a. PNB v. CA, GR No. 97995, 21 January 1993
❖ https://lawyerly.ph/digest/c7885?user=2547

❖ A government bank seeks to recover a mistakenly paid amount from a private

corporation, but the court rules in favor of the respondent, citing laches and the
distinction between constructive trust and solutio indebiti.
➢ Solutio Indebiti - is the juridical relation which is created when something is
received when there is no right to demand it and it was unduly delivered through
mistake.
➢ Requisites are:
■ There is no right to receive the thing delivered.
■ The thing was delivered through a mistake.
❖ Respondent B. P. Mata & Co. Inc. (Mata), is a private corporation engaged in providing
goods and services to shipping companies.
➢ Since 1966, it has acted as a CREWING AGENT for several foreign firms, one of
which is Star Kist Foods
❖ Mata makes advances for the crew's medical expenses, National Seaman's Board
fees, Seamen's Welfare fund, and standby fees and for the crew's basic personal needs.
➢ Subsequently nagsesend ng monthly bills si MATA kay Star Kist Foods.
➢ which in turn ni reimburse nila yun by sending telegraphic transfer through bank.

❖ Then si Security Pacific National Bank (SEPAC) of Los Angeles is meron AGENCY
ARRANGEMENT with Philippine National Bank (PNB)
➢ SEPAC messaged International Department of PNB na bayaran si MATA ng
US$14,000 to MATA by... crediting the latter's account with the Insular Bank of
Asia and America (IBAA), as per order of Star Kist. (utos ni Star Kist)

❖ Then may na notice na error sa transaction yung International Department of PNB, that’s
why minessage nila yung Security Pacific National Bank - SEPAC,
➢ and sabi ng Security Pacific National Bank - SEPAC is dapat daw yung amount is
only US $1,400 and HINDI US$14,000.

❖ February 24, 1975, the check amounting US$1,400 (P9,772.96), representing as a

reimbursement of Star Kist, was issued by the Star Kist for the account of MATA through
Insular Bank of Asia and America - IBAA

❖ 14 days after, PNB made another payment through cashier’s check amounting to
US$14,000 (P97,878.60).
➢ This represent as another transmittal reimbursement from Star Kist (which was
credited to the account of MATA again(

❖ 6 YEARS LATER, after madiscover ng PNB yung error sa second payment ng Star Kist,
They ordered MATA to reimburse the amount of US$14,000 (P97,878.60).

❖ PNB filed a civil case for collection and refund of US$14,000 against Mata
➢ They argue that based on the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST under Article 1456 of
the Civil Code
➢ it has a right to recover the said amount it erroneously credited

❖ RTC DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.

➢ Ruling that the case falls under Article 2154 on SOLUTIO INDEBITI and not
under Article 1456 - Constructive Trust.

❖ In Article 2154; Solutio Indebiti

➢ The person who makes the payment is the one who commits the mistake
vis-a-vis the recipient who is unaware of such mistake.
➢ Consequently, the recipient is bound to return the amount paid by mistake.
❖ But the court concluded that the demand of PNB to MATA to return the $14,000 cannot
prosper because the cause of action had already prescribed under Article 1145
paragraph 2
➢ it states that the following action must commence within SIX YEARS.
➢ upon quasi-contracts

❖ Yung complain ni petitioner has been filed for ALMOST SEVEN YEARS from the time
that petitioner mistakenly made payment to the respondent MATA

❖ ISSUES: Whether or not PNB was correct in arguing that based on constructive
trust, it can still collect the amount from MATA even after more than six years have
already lapsed?

❖ HELD:
❖ Article 1456 - CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTIf the property is acquired through mistake or
fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust
for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.
❖ Article 2154 states: - SOLUTIO INDEBITI
➢ If something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly
delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises.

❖ The petitioner naturally opts for the interpretation of constructive Trust since their action
can still prosper because it is still within the prescriptive period - which is within ten
years.
❖ But even though the case constitutes a constructive trust, the present action has been
barred by laches.
➢ Laches - Unreasonable delay in making an assertion or claim.

❖ CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST is not created by words - either expressly or impliedly, BUT by

construction of equity in order to satisfy the demand for justice.
➢ The person is called as trustee of a property for the benefit of the another (cestui
que trust)

❖ MATA in receiving $14,000 in their account through Insular Bank for Asia and America,
has no intention to hold it for the beneficiary which is yung PNB.
❖ That’s why the case will fall under Article 2154 - Solutio Indebiti
■ Something is received when there is no right to demand it.
■ The same was duly undelivered through mistakes

❖ Applying american case Law, QUASI-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION gives rise to a

personal liability ordinarily enforceable by an action at law. While CONSTRUCTIVE
TRUST are enforceable by proceeding in equity to compel the defendant to
surrender the specific property.

❖ While prescription is concerned with the fact of delay, laches deals with the effect of
unreasonable delay.
 ❖ As between parties where negligence is… imputable to one and not to other, the former
must bear the consequence of its neglect. Hence the petitioner should bear the cost of
its own negligence.

iv. Delict

v. Quasi-Delict
a. Mendoza v. Leonora, GR No. 160110, 18 June 2014
❖ allowed the award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees
and costs of the suit in favor of respondent Spouses Leonora and Gabriel Gomez
(respondents)

❖ On March 7, 1997, yung sasakyan (Isuzu Elf truck) respondent (Leonora Gomez) na
minamaneho ni Antejenes Perez is nabangga ng isang mayamy transportation bus
which at that time nakaregistered siya under the name of the petitioner (Elvira Lim) and
that time ang nagmamaneho ng sasakyan ay si Mariano Mendoza.

❖ (Boni Serrano Avenue, Valenzuela City) - Yung mayamy bus ay sumingit siya sa truck
line causing significant damage and injuries.
❖ Sinubukan tumakas ni Mendoza pero nahuli siya

❖ An Information for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple

physical injuries was filed against Mendoza, who evaded arrest.

❖ Kaya nag pasa ng separate complaint si respondents (Gomez) for damages against the
petitioners, the owner of truck na si Elvira Lim and the driver of the truck na si Mendoza.

❖ seeking actual damages, compensation for lost income, moral damages, exemplary
damages, attorney’s fees and costs of the suit.
➢ exemplary damages - to compensate the plaintiff for their injuries.

❖ According to PO1 Rosales, the Mayamy bus, while traversing the opposite lane, intruded
on the lane occupied by the Isuzu truck.
❖ Sinubukan tumakas ni Mendoza (nagmaneho ng mabilis) pero nahuli din siya

❖ As a result of the incident, nagtamo ng mga injuries yung driver ng truck as well as the
helpers on board of isizu truck.
➢ Umabot ng 11M yung naging medical fee nila.
➢ Shinoulder naman yun lahat ni respondents (Lim and Mendoza)

❖ Pero yung sasakyan is may damaged din that is worth 147K

❖ Yung truck ni Gomez ay yun yung ginagamit nila for their business
➢ Which is yung pagbili ng mga plastic scraps then dinideliver nila yun sa mga
recyling plants that's why importante yung sasakyan sa business nila.

❖ Regarding sa Mayamy bus inaargue ni respondents na ang actual owner daw ng

sasakyan ay si SPO1 Cirilo Enriquez (Enriquez).
 ➢ who had the bus attached with Mayamy Transportation Company (Mayamy
Transport) under the so-called "kabit system."

❖ Si respondent pleaded both Lim and Enriquez.

❖ The RTC found that Mendoza is liable for direct personal negligence (under Article
2176 of the Civil Code)
➢ Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter

❖ and it also found Lim vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the same Code.
➢ vicariously liable - indirect liability for the actions of a another person, such as a
subordinate or child.
➢ Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for
one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible. x x x x Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business of industry.

❖ The RTC awarded actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of
the suit to respondents.
➢ Ordering the [petitioners] except Enriquez to pay [respondents], jointly and
severally

❖ The CA affirmed the RTC's decision with modifications, deleting the award for unrealized
income.

❖ Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

❖ ISSUE: WON Mendoza’s negligence was duly proven? – YES

➢ Article 2185: unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation.
➢ Mendoza encroached upon the lane rightfully occupied by the truck he was
violating traffic regulation he is presumed negligent he failed to overturn the
presumption
➢ It was Mendoza’s negligence that was the proximate legal cause of the injury
sustained by Respondent Spouses.
❖ Who may be held liable? Mendoza and his employer
➢ Mendoza is liable because it was his personal acts and omissions (negligence)
which caused the damage.
➢ Mendoza’s employer is liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability or imputed
negligence.

❖ Who is deemed as Mendoza’s employer? Lim, the registered owner

 ➢ The registered owner of a vehicle is deemed the employer of the negligent driver
insofar as third persons are concerned therefore, vicariously liable

❖ DISPOSITION: Affirmed
➢ DECLARE Mariano Mendoza and Elvira Lim solidarily liable to respondent
Spouses Leonora and Gabriel Gome
➢ MAINTAIN the award of actual or compensatory damages
➢ GRANT additional actual or compensatory damages in for the medical expenses
shouldered by respondent with legal interest
➢ DELETE the award of moral damages;
➢ MAINTAIN the award of exemplary damages at P50,000.00;
➢ DELETE the award of attorney’s fees; and
➢ MAINTAIN the award of costs of suit.

B. Nature and Effects of Obligations (Civil Code, Arts. 1163-1178)

Cases:

Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-27454. April 30, 1970.

❖ https://lawyerly.ph/digest/c55e5?user=10268

❖ In the case of Chaves v. Gonzales, the court ruled in favor of Chaves, finding Gonzales liable for
breaching the oral contract to repair the typewriter and awarded damages for the cost of labor and
missing parts, but rejected claims for moral and temperate damages and attorney's fees.

❖ About the complaint of Chavez who is not satisfied with the decision rendered by the court.

❖ On 1963, si Petitioner-CHAVEZ, pinadala niya kay respondent-GONZALES who is a typewriter repairer

yung typewriter niya for routine cleaning and servicing.
❖ Pero si respondent-Gonzales kahit na paulit ulit siya ni reremind ni Petitioner-Chavez na tapusin na
yung pinapagawa niya is hindi pa rin yun natapos ni respondents-Gonzales.
❖ The respondent-Gonzales gave assurance to petitioner-Chavez But he failed to comply with the same.

❖ In October 1963, si respondent humingi siya ng P6.00 kay petitioner para sa pagbili niya ng spare parts
and bikini gay naman ni petitioner.

❖ Nung nafufrustrate na si petitioner kaka antay dun sa pinapagawa niya, kinukuha niya na yung
typewriter kay Gonzalez and pinadala naman iyun ni Gonzales.

❖ Then nung nareceived na yun ni Chavez, chineck niya yun ang nadiscover niya na medyo magulo yun
and may mga parts na nawawala and also yung interior cover.
❖ Then ni request ni Chavez kay Gonzales na ibalik yung mga missing parts and also yung amount na
P6.00
➢ And binalik naman yun ni Gonzales.

❖ On August 29, 1964, pinaayos ni petitioner-Chavez yung typewriter sa Freixas Business Machines and it
cost him P89.85.
 ❖ On August 23, 1965, nagfile ng complaint si Chavez and nagdedemand siya ng payment na P90.00
actual and compensatory damages, P100.00 for temperate damages, P500.00 for moral damages and
P500.00 for atty’s fees.

❖ "In his answer as well as in his testimony given before this court, the defendant made no denials of the
facts narrated above, except the claim of the plaintiff that the typewriter was delivered to the
de­fendant through a certain Julio Bocalin, which the de­fendant denied allegedly because the
typewriter was delivered to him personally by the plaintiff.

❖ The court ruled na bayaran ni Respondent-Gonzales si petitioner-Chavez ng P31.10 for the cost of suit.
➢ Though yung total cost nung ni repair ng Freixas Business Machines yung typewriter is P89.85
but the total value of the missing parts is only P31.10.

➢ Binalik ni Gonzales yung typewriter na sira pa rin at may kulang na parts, which it means a
breach of obligation, without demanding that he should be given more time to finish the job, or
give him a compensation para dun sa natapos niya.

❖ ISSUES: If there is an error sa ruling ng court na yung value lng ng missing parts yung babayaran ni
respondents-Gonzales and hindi yung whole repair cost as provided under Article 1167
➢ Article 1167
■ If person is obliged to do something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost.
■ This same rule shall be observed if he does it in contravention of the tenor of the
obligation. Furthermore, it may be decreed that what has been poorly done be undone.

❖ Then si Gonzales inargue niya na hindi siya liable since yung contract nila is walang period.
➢ And dapat daw nag apela muna si Chavez sa court to fix the date but since dumiretso na siya sa
SC the facts, as found by the trial court, are now conclusive and non-reviewable.

❖ RULING: It is clear daw that the respondent - Gonzales is liable under article 1167 because he
returned the typewriter in shambles.
➢ That is why he is liable for the cost of repair of typewriter which is P58.75
■ because the obligation or contract was to repair it.
➢ As well as the value of the missing parts.

❖ Claims for damages and attorney's fees must be pleaded,... and the existence of the actual basis thereof
must be proved.

Delos Reyes v. De Leon, G.R No. L-16217, May 25, 1964.

❖ In De los Reyes v. De Leon, the court ruled in favor of the appellees (De los Reyes), declaring the
foreclosure sale null and void, as they did not incur default in their obligation to pay taxes or the loan
without a previous demand, and the non-payment of taxes was not a material breach of the mortgage
contract.
❖ This appeal was originally filed with the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, it was endorsed to and
accepted by this Court for the reason that the issues raised involve only questions of law.

❖ The plaintiff - De los Reyes and others has executed two mortgage agreements in favor of the
dependent-De Leon, as a security for a loan of P60,000 in Japanese currency. (P40,000.00, Philippine
Currency)
❖ The first agreement was “real estate mortgage" on July 4,1944, and “real estate additional mortgagged”
on July 11, 1944.
➢ Both agreements were constituted on a parcel of land in Malate, Manila, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 66955

❖ Yung mortgage agreement nila is

➢ dapat daw mabayaran ni plaaintiff- De los Reyes yung loan within the first three years after the
Greater East Asia War
➢ Si De los Reyes din ang magbabayad ng taxes on the mortgaged property
➢ Bawal niya ibenta or paupahan yung dalawang property without the written consent from the
mortgagee
➢ And if mag fail si De los Reyes sa obligation niya, there will be an immediate foreclosure of the
mortgage property.

❖ "That the MORTGAGOR, desiring to obtain an additional loan of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P20,000.00) from the MORTGAGEE, has, by these presents, transferred, conveyed and assigned, in
favor of the MORTGAGEE, his assigns, heirs' and successors in interest, the above described parcel of
land, subject to the following conditions:

❖ on August 5, 1953, ininform sina De los Reyes na since di sila nakakabayad ng taxes for the years
1951 and 1952 and 1953, the entire loan had become due and demandable
➢ and also the foreclosure of the mortgaged property

❖ Nung sept. 3, 1953, nagbayad ng tax sina Delos Reyes

➢ But the foreclosure of the mortgage property has still proceed on sept. 21, 1953.
➢ with the defendant - De Leon being the sole bidder at P30,000.

❖ The plaintiff or appellees - De los Reyes filed a suit to annul foreclosure sale
➢ on the ground of misrepresentation of the actual indebtedness,
➢ absence of demand prior to foreclosure,
➢ and the prematurity of the foreclosure.

❖ The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff or appellees - De los Reyes, declaring the foreclosure sale is null
and void and awarding atty’s fees.

RATIO:
❖ The ground for such foreclosure is yung hindi pagbayad ng tax on the mortgaged property ni
plaintiff/appellees - Delos Reyes.
❖ walang demand na nangyari both sa tax or sa loan mismo
➢ yung nareceived lng ni delos reyes from the atty of de leon is yung notice na sinasabi na they
will take necessary steps to foreclose the mortgage extrajudicially because the taxes has not
been paid.

❖ Article 1169 provides that those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the
time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of the boligation.
Demand is dispensed with only:
➢ a. when the obligation or the law expressly so declares, that is that the debtor shall be
considered in default without the need for such demand
 ➢ b. when time is of the essence of the obligation
➢ c. and when demand would be useless.

❖ In the case, when the time is of the essence of the obligation, is the only present in the stipulation.
➢ "Time is the paramount condition of this agreement, namely, that the said loan of P40,000.00
shall not be paid sooner nor later than within the first three (3) years after the Greater East
Asia War,

❖ In terms of the non payment of taxes, it is NOT a material breach of contract

➢ when taxes were actually PAID

❖ The timely payment of taxes is not consideration for the period for the payment of the loan.
➢ Kaya hindi nawala yung right ni plaintiff/appellees - delos reyes to avail of the period despite the
delay in paying taxes.

❖ The extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage at the instance of appellant was for the sum of
P60,000.00 instead of only P30,000.00, which was the amount appellees were bound to pay after the
treaty of peace was signed and/or proclaimed.

Guanio v. Makati Shangri-La Hotel, G.R. No. 190601, February 7, 2011.

Legaspi Oil v. CA, G.R. No. 96505, July 1, 1993.

Juntilla v. Fontanar, G.R. No. L-45637, May 31, 1985.

Southeastern College v. CA, G.R. No. 126389, July 10, 1998.]

Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring, G.R. No. L-21749, September 29, 1967.

Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013.