NPC assails the Order on the ground that it directs execution of a

7. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION VS. DAYRIT
(G.R. Nos. L-62845-46, November 25, 1983)
DOCTRINE: In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another
which substitutes the same; it is imperative that it be so declared in
unequivocal terms, or that the old or new obligation be on every point
incompatible with each other. 1292
FACTS
Private Respondent Daniel Roxas, doing business under the name of
United Veterans Security Agency and Foreign Boats Watchmen,
sued the NPC and two of its officers. The purpose of the suit was to
compel the NPC to restore the contract of Roxas for security services
which the former had terminated.
Litigants entered into a Compromise Agreement and they asked the
Court to approve it with the ff terms:
o defendant National Power Corporation shall pay to plaintiff
the sum of P7,277.45
o defendant shall pay plaintiff the value of the line materials
o The parties shall continue with the contract of security
services under the same terms and;
o The parties waive all their respective claims
o The parties agree to faithfully comply with the foregoing
agreement.
NPC executed another contract for security services with Josette
Roxas whose relationship to Daniel is not shown. At any rate Daniel
has owned the contract.
contract which had been novated by that of 1982.
Roxas claims that said contract was executed precisely to implement
the compromise agreement for which reason there was no novation.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
WON there was novation? YES.
HELD
It is elementary that novation is never presumed; it must be
explicitly stated or there must be manifest incompatibility between
the old and the new obligations in every aspect. Thus the Civil Code
provides:
Art. 1292. In order that an obligation may be extinguished by
another which substitutes the same, it is imperative that it be so
declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new
obligations be on every point incompatible with each other.
In the case at bar there is nothing in the May 14, 1982, agreement
which supports the petitioner's contention. There is neither explicit
novation nor incompatibility on every point between the "old" and
the "new" agreements.
WHO WON? NAPOCOR

The NPC refused to implement the new contract for which reason
Daniel filed a Motion for Execution --- Respondent judge issued
writ of execution.