You are on page 1of 4

Maam: Ok so there was performance but it was not done in accordance with the obligation.

(Continuation by CBR) Remedies of the Creditor 1.) If the debtor failed to fulfill the obligation, the same may be done by the creditor himself or by another person at the expense of the debtor 2.) If the obligation was done in violation of the agreement, the creditor or another may execute the obligation at the expense of the debtor. Same with the first. Ex. Like ang typewriter giparepair so girepair to niya pero inig type nimo sa A, ang mutype didto sa papel kay X, so thats not in accordance with the tenor of the obligation. 3.) If the performance is poor, the creditor may undo the same at the expense of the debtor There is performance, and it is in line with the tenor of the obligation but it is poorly done. Again the typewriter, inig type nimo sa A, A jud ang mugawas, pero di na siya mubalik, gahi na siya. It is poorly done. Aside from that, what are the other remedies of the creditor, aside from having the obligation done by another at the expense of the debtor? Sa katong third situation, the performance is poor so what is the remedy of the creditor? What has been done can be undone at the expense of the debtor, you can also claim for damages. So, in these three cases whether there is performance or poor performance of the obligation, or in the contravention in the tenor of obligation, you can ask for damages. For example, if the obligation is to sing in a concert, so you hired a singer to sing in a concert which you produced, is this a personal or a mere obligation? To do, so this is personal, What if he refuses to sing? Ans: He cannot be compelled by force to perform for that will violate his civil liberty. Can you consider that obligation which is something that can only be done by the debtor himself? For example, you have already advertised like Sarah Geronimo, naa na siyay ticket, what if she refuses now? can you just replace her? can it be done by another at the expense of the debtor? What is the remedy? It cannot be performed by someone else but the creditor can claim for indemnification of damages against the debtor. If the personal obligation is something which can only be done by the debtor, in that case it is impossible for it to be executed by another at the expense of the debtor, so the remedy here is to pay for damages.

Continental Cement Corporation vs Pilipinas Systems Incorporated GR 176917 Aug 4, 2009 The case here involves of course Continental Cement and Pil Systems. Here, there were delays by Pil System in finishing the construction work in accordance with the contract. Because there was already a delay, CCC was forced to have the construction be completed by another contractor. At that time, Pil Systems has already completed 92.83 percent of the work. So, because of the failure of PS to finish, CCC had it done by another contractor. CCC claimed the value of construction contract entered into with another contractor. Issue: Would PS be liable to pay CCC the value of the contract which it was constrained to enter into with another person in order to finish the work? Held: Yes under Article 1167, PS can be held liable. It only finished 92.83% of the work, so the rest of the unfinished job was finished by another contractor. PS had the obligation to complete the project, but it did not finish. So, when CCC was constrained to get the services of another contractor, that would be at the expense of PS. But the SC said na bec. PS already accomplished 92.83% of the work, it should be liable only of the 7.17% of the project. Because letting it pay more would unjustly enrich CCC which has already benefited from the work of PS. So even if PS is liable for the uncompleted project, it would be just liable for the project which is not complete. Tanguilig vs CA: Read the case (according to maam) We now proceed to 1168. Art. 1168 When the obligation consists in not doing, the obligor does what has been forbidden him, it shall also be undone at his expense. So what kind of obligation is mentioned in 1168? A negative personal obligation. An obligation not to do. So, the law says, if the obligation consists of not doing, and the obligor does what was forbidden of him to do, it shall be undone at his own expense. What happened in the case of. Fajardo Jr. vs Freedom to build (Recit Javier) Facts: (Read your digests ) Questions: What was the contention of the respondents? Was it constrained in a restrictive covenant, the demolition? So, absent that specific demolition in the restrictive covenant, can demolition be done? Ok, so even if the restrictive covenant did not mention of any provision on demolition, still the remedy of demolition is available as remedy under Article 1168.

Take note that in all contracts, the law is deemed written, you dont have to cite in the contract every applicable provision of law. It is presumed that the contract is not contrary to law. This is one application of 1168. When you say it can be undone, that would include demolition because when you demolish, it is undoing something. Art. 1169 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 their obligation. However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay may exist: When the obligation or the law expressly so declare; or When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it appears that the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the service is to be rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the contract; or When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to perform. In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins

So, we have already mentioned before the concept of delay, Article 1169 says, there is already delay when the obligee fails to perform the obligation upon demand. The general rule is that for delay to exist, there should first be a demand to what we call the extraordinary delay, default, legal delay or mora. What kind of demand? judicially or extrajudicially. Judicial demand: A case filed in court for performance. Extrajudicial demand: Something which is not done through the courts like you sent a demand letter. That is already a demand. Although its extrajudicial that will still place the debtor in delay. Vazquez vs Ayala Corporation Lets focus here in the issue of delay and demand. There was an allegation that Ayala incurred delay because it failed to develop the first phase of the amended development plan within three years from the execution of the MOA. It was alleged that Ayala was in delay. Now, the general rule is there is no delay when there is no demand. ISSUE: Was there a demand upon Ayala already commence its obligation?

What are the requisites mentioned by the Supreme Court here to place the obligor in delay? Requisites (1) that the obligation be demandable and already liquidated; (2) that the debtor delays performance; and (3) that the creditor requires the performance judicially or extrajudicially So, in relation to these requisites, was Ayala already in delay? Petitioners here pointed out they sent demand letters to Ayala, were these letters constitutive of a demand on Ayala? There were several letters here mentioned, example, the letters dated prior to April 23, 1984, February 1984, March 5, 1984. So what were the specific instructions of the SC with regards to these letters? The first letter dated prior to April 23, 1984, could you consider that as a demand letter? Here the SC said that Apr. 23, 1984 was the date when the period was supposed to expire. That means that mao na siya ang period when performance was to be made by the debtor. SO, when you sent a letter prior to the date of maturity that would not be considered as a demand. Bec, as we mentioned before, the requisites so that the debtor must be placed in default, the obligation must be due and demandable, so if you make a demand na dili pa diay due ang iyang obligation, that cannot be considered as a demand. That is not considered as a demand, the demand has no legal effect. The demand shall be made at the time that the obligation is due and demandable. Here, the letters were not sent at the time when the obligation was already legally due and demandable. Also, in this case, the letters, there was also a mention of the waiver of the 3-year period by the petitioners, they agreed that the three-yr period shall counted from the termination of the case filed and not on the execution of the MOA. Then, the tenor of the letters as quoted by the SC actually did not amount to a demand and that we expect from your goodselves compliance with our Memorandum of Agreement, and a definite date as to when the road to our property and the development of Phase I will be completed the SC said the letters can only be construed as mere reminders and not considered as demands or court performance. For a letter to be a demand letter, it must appear that the tolerance or benevolence of the creditor has ended. So, YOU SHOULD already start the construction. Dapat klaro jud unsa inyong gusto. It has to be a strong letter.