Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

September 2, 2019

NEW CASES:

When should the counting of Prescriptive Periods start?

1) Solid Homes Inc. vs Tan (465 SCRA 137)


Prescriptive Period is reckoned from the date the demand is made.

2) Autocorp Group vs Intra Strata Assurance Company (556 SCRA 250)


Demand is NOT what triggers the Prescriptive Period. Prescriptive Period is reckoned when the
obligation becomes due and demandable.

CASES DISCUSSED:

1) SSS vs Moonwalk:

Demand must be made by the creditor in order for the debtor to be liable for DELAY.

2) Barzaga vs CA:

TIME is of the essence in the performance of obligations.

3) Lorenzo Shipping Corp. vs BJ Marthel:

The Complaint only alleged that petitioner made a "follow-up" upon respondent, which, however,
would not qualify as a demand for the fulfillment of the obligation.

Without a previous DEMAND for the fulfillment of the obligation, petitioner would not have a cause of
action for rescission against respondent as the latter would not yet be considered in breach of its
contractual obligation.

4) Pantaleon vs American Express:

AmEx is liable for damages under Article 1170 in terms of the delay in the facilitating the
approval/disapproval of the credit card which cause the humiliation, anxiety, sleepless nights, etc. of
the spouses.

However, AmEx is NOT liable for DELAY because there was no prior obligation with respect to the
grant of loan to Pantaleon. The obligation arose from the discharge of the

5) Solar Harvest, Inc. vs Davao Corrugated Carton Corp.:

Compensatio Morae; the delay of the parties or obligors in reciprocal obligations.


September 2, 2019
NOTE: Exception to the general rule in Compensatio Morae – Demand is necessary when there is a
period for the fulfillment of the reciprocal obligation.

6) Cathay Pacific vs Spouses Vasquez:

Cathay Pacific is liable for damages due to the contravention of the tenor of the obligation and NOT
for FRAUD.

Read the following provisions:

Article 1165 par. 2

“If the thing is indeterminate or generic, he may ask that the obligation be complied with at the
expense of the debtor.” – also applicable to LIMITED GENERIC THINGS

Article 1497

Concept of Delivery

Article 1170

“Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those
who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.” – Read the cases
discussed in class.

Article 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.”

3 kinds of Delay:
September 2, 2019
1) Mora Solvendi – or the delay of the obligor or debtor to perform his obligation.
2) Mora Accipiendi – or the delay of the obligee or creditor to accept the delivery of the thing which is
the object of the obligation.
3) Compensatio Morae – or the delay of the parties or obligors in reciprocal obligations.

When is demand NOT necessary?

Demand by the creditor shall NOT be necessary in order that delay may exist:

1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declares.


2) 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
3) When demand would be useless (as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to
perform, when the debtor denies the obligation).

Article 1171

“Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an action for future
fraud is void.”

2 kinds of FRAUD: 1) Fraud in the FULFILLMENT OF OBLIGATION; and

2) Fraud in the INDUCEMENT TO ENTER INTO THE OBLIGATION.

Article 1171 does NOT have anything to do with: 1) Dolo Incidente (Article 1344); and

2) Dolo Causante (Article 1338)

Article 1171 is committed in the fulfillment of obligations, whereas, for fraud in Articles 1344 & 1338
there is no obligation yet.

S-ar putea să vă placă și