A.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

a. Elements

1. Ang Yu Asuncion vs. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 602

b. Arts. 19 & 21

a. Paguio v. PLDT, 393 SCRA 379 [2002]

b. Carpio v. Valmonte, 438 SCRA 38 [2004]

c. Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges, 443 SCRA 56 [2004]

d. Nikko Hotel v. Reyes aka “Amay Bisaya”, 452 SCRA 532 [2005]

c. Sources of Obligations

a. Sagrada Orden De Predicadores Del Santismo Rosario De Filipinas vs. National Coconut

Corporation, G.R. No. L-3756, June 30, 1952

b. Intestate Estate of the Late Ricardo Presbiterio vs. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 372

c. MMTC v. CA, 386 SCRA 126 [2002] (Culpa Contractual/Culpa Aquiliana)

d. Makati Stock Exchange, Inc., Et Al. vs. Campos, G.R. No. 138814, April 16, 2009

e. The Metropolitan Bank And Trust Company vs. Ana Grace Rosales And Yo Yuk To, G.R. No.

183204, January 13, 2014

d. Article 1158.

a. George W. Batchelder vs. The Central Bank Of The Philippines, G.R. No. L-25071, July 29, 1972

b. Arturo Pelayo Vs. Marcelo Lauron, Et Al., G.R. No. L-4089, January 12, 1909

e. Article 1159

a. Morla vs. Corazon Belmonte, et al., G.R. No. 171146, December 7, 2011

b. Fausto Barredo vs. Severino Garcia And Timotea Almario, G.R. No. L-48006, July 8, 1942

A. Culpa Contractual
 1. Employer/Owner liable

a. FGU v. Sarmiento, 386 SCRA 312 [2002]

2. Presumption of Fault/Negligence-arises from mere breach.

a. FGU v. Sarmiento, 386 SCRA 312 [2002]

B. Culpa Aquiliana

1. Villanueva v. Domingo, 438 SCRA 485 [2004]

C. Employee & employer solidarily liable

1. If employer sued, employee not indispensable party

a. Cerezo v. Tuazon, 426 SCRA 167 [2004]

b. LRTA v. Navidad, 397 SCRA 75 [2003]

c. Viron v. De los Santos, 345 SCRA 509 [2000]

2. Employer’s fault/negligence presumed.

a. Victory Liner v. Heirs of Malecdan, 394 SCRA 520 [2002]

b. Pleyto v. Lomboy, 432 SCRA 329 [2004]

c. Estacion v. Bernardo, 483 SCRA 222 [2006}

3. Presumption is rebuttable by proof of due diligence

a. Viron v. Delos Santos, 345 SCRA 509 [2000]

b. Sykl v. Begasa, 414 SCRA 237 [2003]

c. Delsan v. C&A Construction, 412 SCRA 524 [2003]

4. Quasi-delictual liability may arise even where there is an existing contractual relationship.

a. Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges, 443 SCRA 56 [2004]

b. YHT Realty v. CA, 451 SCRA 638 [2005]

c. American Express International, Inc. vs. Cordero, 473 SCRA 42

d. Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. John Bordman Ltd. of Ilolilo, Inc., 473 SCRA 151
B. NATURE AND EFFECTS OF OBLIGATIONS

1. Article 1164

a. Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. vs. Mayfair Theater, Inc., G.R. No. 133879, November 21, 2001

b. The Fidelity And Deposit Company Of Maryland vs. William A. Wilson, Et Al., G.R. No. 2684, March 15, 1907

2. Article 1165.

a. Jimmy Co vs. Court Of Appeals And Broadway Motor Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 124922, June 22, 1998

3. Article 1166.

a. Testacy Of Maxima Santos Vda. De Blas. Rosalina Santos vs. Flora Blas De Buenaventura (Legatee), G.R. No. L-

22797, September 22, 1966

4. Article 1167

a. Continental Cement Corp. vs. Filipinas (Prefab) Systems, Inc., G.R. No. 176917, August 4, 2009

b. Heirs Of Ramon C. Gaite, Et Al.

vs. The Plaza, Inc. And Fgu Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 177685, January 26, 2011

c. Continental Cement Corporation vs. Asea Brown Boveri, Inc., Bbc Brown Boveri, Corp., And Tord B. Erikson, G.R.

No. 171660, October 17, 2011

5. Article 1168

a. Eliseo Fajardo, Jr., And Marissa Fajardo Vs. Freedom To Build, Inc., G.R. No. 134692, August 1, 2000

6. Article 1170

a. Guanio vs Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort Corp., g.r. No. 190601, February 7, 2011

b. Continental Cement Corp. vs. Asea Brown Boveri, .R. No. 171660, October 17, 2011

7. Article 1169 (Delay)

a. Rodolfo G. Cruz and Esperanza Ibias vs. Atty. Delfin Gruspe, G.R. No. 191431, March 13, 2013

b. Solar Harvest, Inc. vs. Davao Corrugated Carton Corporation, G.R. No. 176868, July 26, 2010

c. Santos vs. Ventura Foundation, Inc., 441 SCRA 472

d. Lorenzo Shipping Corp. vs. BJ Mathell Int’l., Inc., 443 SCRA 163

e. Titan Construction Corp. vs. Uni-Field Enterprises, Inc., 517 SCRA 180
f. Social Security System vs. Moonwalk Development and Housing Corporation, 221 SCRA 119

g. Bricktown Development Corporation vs. Amor Tierra Development Corporation, 239 SCRA 126

h. Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation vs. Primetown Property, Inc., 544 SCRA 466

8. Article 1171 (Fraud/Bad Faith)

a. Cathay Pacific Airways vs. Vasquez, 399 SCRA 207 [2003]

b. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. CA and Lydia Geronimo, G.R. No. 110295, October 18, 1993

9. Article 1173 (Negligence)

a. Yambao vs. Zuniga, 418 SCRA 266

b. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 78

10. Article 1174 (Fortuitous Event)

b. National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 125

c. Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation vs. Globe Telecom, Inc., G.R. No. 147324, May 25, 2004

d. FGU Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 454 SCRA 337

d. Schmitz Transport & Brockerage Corporation vs. Transport Venture, Inc., 456 SCRA 557

e. National Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 422

f. Philippine Free Press, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 473 SCRA 639

g. Osmena vs. Social Security System, 533 SCRA 313

h. Jimmy Co vs. Court Of Appeals And Broadway Motor Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 124922, June 22, 1998

11. Article 1175

a. See Banko Sentral Circular No. 799, Series of 2013 dated July 1, 2013.

b. Eastern Shipping v. CA, 234 SCRA 78 [1994]

c. JL Investment and Development, Inc. vs. Tendon Phils., Inc., 512 SCRA 84 [2007]

d. New Sampaguita Builders Construction, Inc. vs. PNB, 435 SCRA 565 [2004]

e. Pilipinas Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 225 SCRA 268

f. Sunga-Chan vs. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 555

12. Article 1176

a. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Pedro P. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 176479, October 6, 2010
13. Article 1177

a. Gold Star Mining Co., Inc. vs. Marta Lim-Jimena, ET AL., G.R. No. L-25301, October 26, 1968

b. Anchor Savings Bank (Formerly Anchor Finance And Investment Corporation) vs. Henry H. Furigay, ET AL., G.R.

No. 191178, March 13, 2013

c. Elenita M. Dewara vs. Sps. Ronnie And Gina Lamela And Stenile Alvero, G.R. No. 179010, April 11, 2011

d. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. International Exchange Bank, G.R. No. 176008, August 1, 2011

C. KINDS OF OBLIGATIONS

1. Conditional Obligations (Articles 1179-1192)

a. ATIENZA VS. ESPIDOL, G.R. No. 180665, August 11, 2010 contract to sell = positive suspensive condition.

Obligation to sell is extinguished upon failure. Not rescission of reciprocal.

b. VDA. DE MISTICA VS. NAGUIAT, 418 SCRA 73 rescission allowed if substantial and fundamental. Here,

there was even a penal clause allowing for payment past the expiration.

c. TAYAG VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 219 SCRA 480 right to rescind may be waived condonation, constructive

fulfilment

d. GAITE VS. FONACIER, G.R. No. L-11827, July 31, 1961 conditional can be deemed period if fair or if

potestative upon the debtor.

e. MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY and AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE vs.

BERNARDO L. LOZADA, SR., ET AL. G.R. No. 176625, 2010 expropriation is a suspensive condition.

Abandonment of specific public use will end in resolution.

f. MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs. BENJAMIN TUDTUD, ET AL., G.R. No. 174012,

November 14, 2008 same as above

g. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HOLY TRINITY REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP., G.R. No. 172410, April

14, 2008 expropriation paid, interest accrued pertains to owner of payment. Posterior conditions fulfilled also

retroacted.

h. ROMULO A. CORONEL, ET AL. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., G.R. No. 103577, October 7, 1996

i. LUZON BROKERAGE CO., INC. vs. MARITIME BUILDING CO., INC. and MYERS BUILDING CO., INC., G.R. No.

L-25885 August 18, 1972

j. PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORP. vs. RADIOMARINE NETWORK, G.R. No. 160322, August 24, 2011

k. INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION vs. FRANCISCO B. JOAQUIN, JR. and RAFAEL SUAREZ, G.R. No.

158361, April 10, 2013

On Article 1191 (Resolution/Rescission of Obligations)

The Four Questions:

(1) Must the right to rescind be stipulated?

(2) Is it the last recourse?

(3) Must it be done through court action?

(4) Is there a duty of mutual restitution?

a. Gaite vs. The Plaza, Inc., G.R. No. 177685,Januaryu 26, 2011 breach of obligation = can rescind

b. Solar Harvest, Inc. vs. Davao Corrugated Carton Corporation, G.R. No. 176868, July 26, 2010 reciprocal with

suspensive period, needs demand

c. UFC v. CA, 33 SCRA 1 [1970] difference, 1911 v 1380

d. Cannu v. Galang, 459 SCRA 80 [2005]

e. UP v. De Los Angeles, 35 SCRA 102 [1970]

f. Gil vs. Garcia, 410 SCRA 562 [2003]

g. Visayan Sawmill Company, Inc. vs. CA, 219 SCRA 378

h. Tayag vs. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 480

i. Binalbagan Tech. Inc. vs. CA, 219 SCRA 541

j. Deiparine vs. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 119

k. Prudence Realty and Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 379

l. Genaro Reyes Construction, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 116

m. Areola vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 643

n. Diesel Construction Co., Inc. vs. UPSI Property Holdings, Inc., 549 SCRA 12

o. Spouses Jose T. Valenzuela And Gloria Valenzuela Vs. Alayaan Development & Industrial Corporation, G.R. No.

163244, June 22, 2009 kalayaan property illegal occupant, mutual restitution

2. Obligations with a Period (Articles 1193-1198)

a. GAITE vs. FONACIER, G .R. No. L-11827, July 31, 1961 expired bond, period forfeited

b. SARMIENTO vs. JAVELLANA, G.R. No. L-18500, October 2, 1922 jewels

c. SEOANE vs. FRANCO, G.R. No. L-7859, February 12, 1913 will of debtor, prescribed

d. ORIT vs. BALDROGAN COMPANY, LTD, G.R. No. L-12277, December 29, 1959 fixed date, cannot be

changed, no presumption in favor of both parties

e. BUCE vs. CA G.R. No. 136913, May 12, 2000 period set presumed in favor of both parties
f. LL AND COMPANY DEVELOPMENT AND AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION vs. HUANG CHAO CHUN, G.R.

No. 142378, March 7, 2002 extension of term subject to agreement, unless expressly unilateral

g. MACASAET vs.MACASAET, G.R. Nos. 154391-92, September 30, 2004 based on ~l o v e~, resolutory

condition (not period)

h. ABAD vs. GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES, INC., G.R. No. 168108, April 13, 2007 cannot set period if it was not

intended

i. PEOPLE'S BANK AND TRUST CO. and ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA vs. DAHICAN LUMBER

COMPANY, , G.R. No. L-17500, May 16, 1967 insolvency

j. CORPUS vs. ALIKPALA, G.R. No. L-23707, January 17, 1968 violation of undertaking

k. LIRAG TEXTILE MILLS, INC. and FELIX K. LIRAG vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CRISTAN ALCANTARA, G.R.

No. L-30736 April 14, 1975 resolutory period example

l. CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY vs. CA, 246 SCRA 511 resolutory period deemed with the condition

m. DR. DANIEL VAZQUEZ and MA. LUIZA M. VAZQUEZ vs. AYALA CORPORATION, G.R. No. 149734, November

19, 2004

n. PAUL SCHENKER vs. WILLIAM F. GEMPERLE, G.R. No. L-16449, August 31, 1962period intended

o. ENRIQUE C. ABAD ET AL. vs. GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES, INC.R. No. 168108, April 13, 2007 no period

intended, court will not set

p. THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and DR. BENITO TUMAMAO vs. HEIRS OF RUFINO DULAY, SR. ET AL.,

G.R. No. 164748, January 27, 2006 same as CPU

q. JOSE A. V. CORPUS vs. HON. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, as Presiding Judge of Branch XXII, Court of First

Instance of Manila and ACME MANUFACTURING, CO., INC., respondents., G.R. No. L-23707, January 17, 1968

lost right to use the period, violated undertaking

3. Alternative and Facultative Obligations (Articles 1199-1206)

a. AGONCILLO vs. JAVIER, 38 PHIL. 424 alternative, even if “if insolvent”, not automatic.

b. ONG GUAN CAN vs. CENTURY INSURANCE CO., 46 Phil. 592 alternative, must be in full. Must not be

iniquitous

c. CLARA TAMBUNTING DE LEGARDA, ET AL vs. VICTORIA DESBARATS MIAILHE, G.R. No. L-3435, April 28,

1951 alternative becomes simple if impossible

d. MARTINA QUIZANA vs. GAUDENCIO REDUGERIO and JOSEFA POSTRADO, G..R. No. L-6220, May 7, 1954 if

upon failure, may substitute = facultative.

e. ARCO PULP AND PAPER CO., INC. and CANDIDA A. SANTOS

vs. DAN T. LIM, G.R. No. 206806, June 25, 2014 alt obli gone wrong. Choice may be implied = legal effect.

Novation is never presumed.

4. Joint and Solidary Obligations (Articles 1207-1222; see also Articles 109 and 110 of the Revised Penal Code)

a. REPUBLIC GLASS CORPORATION vs. QUA, 435 SCRA 480 [2004] cannot ask for reimbursement if didn’t

pay more than share

b. LAFARGE CEMENT PHILS., INC. vs. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORP., 443 SCRA 552

c. CERNA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 220 SCRA 517

d. SESBRENO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 222 SCRA 466

e. MMTC vs. CA, 223 SCRA 521

f. ESTRELLA PALMARES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and M.B. LENDING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 126490 March

31, 1998

g. TIU vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 228 SCRA 51

h. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION vs. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORPORATION, 464 SCRA 409

i. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION vs. IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 475 SCRA 149

j. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. TAMPUS, G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009

k. BENIGNO M. VIGILLA ET AL. vs. PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY INC. and/or GREGORY ALAN F.

BAUTISTA, G.R. No. 200094, June 10, 2013

l. PH CREDIT CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS M. FARRALES, No. 109648, November 22,

2001

m. LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN and CECILIA SUNGA vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ET Al., G.R. No. 164401, June 25, 2008

5. Divisible and Indivisible Obligations (Articles 1223-1225)

a. Nazareno vs, CA, 343 SCRA 637 indivisibility must refer to prestation, not # of obligors

b. SPOUSES GONZALES vs. GSIS, G.R. No. L-51997 September 10, 1981 mortgage indivisible

c. Blossom & Company, Inc. v. Manila Gas Corporation (55 Phil. 226 (1930) action for breach is indivisible, even if

continuing, if totally repudiated (broke contract)

d. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. G.R. No. L-11530, June 30, 1960

indivisible if meant by parties, even if actually distinct. Brokerage/administration

e. INTESTATE ESTATE OF FRANCISCO UBAT, deceased. JOSE L. SORIANO vs. ATANASIA UBAT DE MONTES,

ET AL. G.R. No. L-11633, January 31, 1961 installments are divisible, action per breach

f. METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY, INC. vs. SLGT HOLDINGS, INC., DANILO A. DYLANCO and

ASB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. Nos. 175181-82, September 14, 2007 mortgage is indivisible

g. INTERNATIONAL HOTEL CORPORATION vs. FRANCISCO B. JOAQUIN, JR. and RAFAEL SUAREZ, G.R. No.

158361, April 10, 2013

6. Obligations with a Penal Clause (Articles 1226-1230)

a. FILINVEST LAND, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 470 SCRA 260 iniquitous, tempered. Especially because

substantial fulfilment

basically: if for punishment = tempered. If for liquidated damages = may be tempered, but slow. Both

contemplate no fulfilment.

if partly complied with: tempered in either case.

b. FLORENTINO vs. SUPERVALUE, INC., 533 SCRA 156 penalty iniquitous, considering the breach

c. MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. EMPIRE INSURANCE CO., G.R. No. L-21780, June 30, 1967

d. COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION and ENRIQUE SY vs. COURT OF APPEALS and OSCAR

VENTANILLA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, G.R. No. 85161, September 9, 1991

penalty to punish = may still sue for damages

extinguishment of obli

payment/performance

1. Identity of prestation

a. Cathay pacific v Vazquez cannot compel diff thing

b. ASJ corp v sps evangelista cannot compel partial payment

c. DBP v CA cession = 1 creditor. Dacion = agreement to extinguish obli. Mortgage = must

foreclose before appropriation

2. Proper payee

a. Culaba v CA payment made to creditor, successor, or authorized.

b. PCIB v CA payment made to impostor, made to pay again

c. Baritua v CA payment made to successor in heir = extinguish. No more claim from

same obli.

d. Montecillo v Reynes Payment made to third person. No valid payment. No

consideration = void contract

3. Proper payor

a. JN Devt v PhilExport loaned from TRB, guaranteed by PE. Defaulted, paid by PE to TRB.

Foreclosed, but PE still asking for reimbursement. Proper payor is TRB, double

payment.

b. Security bank v CA payment made by third person w/o interest, can recover insofar as

it has benefited debtor. Debtor denied any obligations owing. Cannot reimburse.

4. Time of performance

a. Lorenzo shipping corp v BJ Marthel if time is of the essence, stipulate. No stipulation =

delivered within reasonable time

b. Bricktown v Amor Tierra grace period is a right

5. Burden of proving payment

a. G&M v Cuambot debtor has burden of proof re payment

b. Citibank v Sabeniano debtor must prove payment, even if creditor is one who alleges

non-payment

c. Coruna v Cinamin debtor must prove payment, even if sad. Dura lex sed lex

6. Money obligations (1249-50)

a. Tibajia v CA checks are not legal tender, valid refusal

b. Telengtan v US Lines basis of money payment shall be value during constitution of

obligation. Even if there were extraordinary inflation, there must be agreement. NB:

downward trend is not extraordinary.

c. BE San Diego v Alzul SC granted 30 day period. Can make consignation within or

thereafter within reasonable time

d. Padilla v CA

e. Compania v Molina checks/instruments shall produce payment when encashed or

impaired by creditor. Cause of action shall be in abeyance until after.

f. US v Bedoya impaired value of draft, payment effected

g. Papa v Valencia did not encash check in time. Impaired it. Payment effected

h. PAL v CA pal was required to give check in name of sheriff. Latter absconded.

Authorized, but was in check so encashment first before effect of payment. Never

reached.

7. Tender of payment

a. Ramos v Sarrao tender of payment and notice of consignation in one act—OK

b. Llobrera v Fernandez nothing due (no obligation, tolerated stay in property); no unjust

refusal. NB: consignation was with bank, not valid

 c. Banco Filipino v Diaz debtor may withdraw thing consigned before consignation is

claimed or decreed proper

Loss of the thing due

1. NATELCO v CA service has become so difficult—performance of obligation.

2. DE LEON v ASUNCION genus nunquam perit. Not delimited to own palay field, cannot be

excused by caso fortuito