ELSA B. REYES, petitioner,vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, AFP-MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC., and

GRACIELA ELEAZAR, respondents.

TOPIC: Novation Requisites

G.R NO: 120817; November 4, 1996
PONENTE: Torres, Jr., J.
DOCTRINE: Requisites of Novation: (1) a previous valid obligation ; (2) an agreement of the parties concerned to a new
contract; (3) extinguishment of the old contract; (4) validity of the new contract.
FACTS:
A. Re: Resolution dated January 23, 1992
Eurotrust (headed by Reyes) and Bermic (headed by Eleazar) entered into a loan agreement, without collateral but
with interest higher than the bank.
Reyes issued 21 postdated checks as installment payments but was dishonored by the drawee bank RCBC due to
stop payment order made by Eleazar. Reyes filed against her several criminal complaints for violation of B.P. 22
and estafa under Art. 315 of RPC.
In the testimony of Eleazar, she asserted that it came to her knowledge that the funds she loaned from Eurotrust
belonged to AFP-MBAI. Upon knowing this, she requested a meeting with Eurotrust and reached an agreement that
Eleazar will directly settle its obligations with the real owners, AFP-MBAI and DECS-IMC.
Pursuant to this understanding, Bermic negotiated with AFP-MBAI and DECS-IMC and made payments to the
latter. In fact, Bermic paid AFP-MBAI P31,711.11 and a check of P1-million.
However, Eleazar later learned that Reyes continued to collect on the postdated checks so upon her counsels
advise, Eleazar had the payment stopped.
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal dismissed the complaints. Reyes filed petition for review with Sec. of
Justice but case was dismissed. It held that the novation of the loan agreement prevents the rise of any incipient
criminal liability since the novation had the effect of canceling the checks and rendering without effect the
subsequent dishonor of the already cancelled checks.
B. Re: Resolution dated January 12, 1993
At the time of the pendency of the cases filed Reyes against Eleazar, AFP-MBAI lodged a separate complaint for
estafa and a violation of BP 22 against Reyes. Office of the Prosecutor, upon investigation, recommend filing of an
info against Reyes for the aforementioned violations. Petitioner avers that she could not be held criminally liable for
the crime charged because the contract of sale of securities between her and respondent AFP-MBAI was novated by
substitution of debtor
Issue
Whether or not novation takes place
1. 1st Reso (Substitution of Creditor)
Provincial Prosecutor and CA:
Contract of loan between petitioner
and respondent had been novated
when they agreed that Eleazar
should settle her firms obligations
directly with AFP-MBAI and
DECS-IMC.
2. 2nd Reso (Substitution of Debtor)
Reyes Contention:
Eleazar, instead of paying Reyes on
her loan, assumed petitioners

Held
No

No

Ratio
Last 3 requisites of novation (see doctrine) were not met.
No new agreement for substitution of creditor was forged
among the parties concerned which would take the place of the
preceding contract.
The absence of a new contract
extinguishing the old one destroys any possibility of novation
by conventional subrogation.
The fact that respondent Eleazar made payments to AFPMBAI and the latter accepted them does not ipso facto result in
novation. There must be an express intention to novate animus novandi. Novation is never presumed.
No evidence was shown to prove that AFP-MBAI has the
intention to release the petitioner from her obligation.

obligation under the contract of sale

to make payments to respondent
AFP-MBAI directly.

Novation which consists in substituting a new debtor in the

place of the original one, may be made even without or against
the will of the latter, but not without the consent of the creditor.
(Art. 1293, Civil Code)