Chapter 4 - idk PDF

Preview

Summary

SECTION 3. - Condonation or Remission of Debt ART. 1270. Condonation or remission is essentially gratuitous, and requires the acceptance by the obligor. It may be made expressly or impliedly. One and the other kind shall be subject to the rules which govern inofficious donations. Express condonation...

Description

SECTION 3. - Condonation or Remission of Debt ART. 1270. Condonation or remission is essentially gratuitous, and requires the acceptance by the obligor. It may be made expressly or impliedly. One and the other kind shall be subject to the rules which govern inofficious donations. Express condonation shall, furthermore, comply with the forms of donation. (1187) Condonation or remission – gratuitous renunciation by the creditor of his right against the debtor resulting in the extinguishment of the latter’s obligation in its entirely or in that part of the same to which the renunciation refers. It is thus a form of donation. Requisites of condonation or remission. The requisites are the following: (1) It must be gratuitous; (2) It must be accepted by the obligor; (3) The parties must have capacity; (4) It must not be inofficious; and (5) If made expressly, it must comply with the forms of donation. REMISSION – presupposes that the obligation is and continues to be, demandable at the time of the remission. (8 Manresa 365.) Kinds of remission. They are: (1) As to its extent: (a) Complete. — covers the entire obligation; (b) Partial. — does not cover the entire obligation. (2) As to its form: (a) Express. — made either verbally or in writing; or (b) Implied. — can only be inferred from conduct. (3) As to its date of effectivity: (a) Inter vivos. — will take effect during the lifetime of the donor; or (b) Mortis causa. — will become effective upon the death of the donor. It must comply with the formalities of a will. Effect of inofficious remission. While a person may make donations, no one can give more than that which he can give by will, otherwise, the excess shall be inofficious and shall be reduced by the court accordingly. As a rule, testamentary dispositions which impair the legitime shall be reduced on petition of the heirs (see Art. 887.) insofar as they are inofficious or excessive. Legitime – part of the testator’s property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for certain heirs (like the children with respect to their parents) who are, therefore, called compulsory heirs. (Art. 886.) ART. 1271. The delivery of a private document evidencing a credit, made voluntarily by the creditor to the debtor, implies the renunciation of the action which the former had against the latter. If in order to nullify this waiver it should be claimed to be inofficious, the debtor and his heirs may uphold it by proving that the delivery of the document was made in virtue of payment of the debt. (1188) Presumption in case document of indebtedness voluntarily delivered by creditor. (1) Presumption of implied remission. — Article 1271 gives an example of implied or tacit remission. In order that the presumption established by this article may be applicable, it is necessary that the delivery of the private document be a voluntary act of the creditor. (2) Contrary evidence. — Evidence is admissible to show otherwise, as when it was delivered only for examination. (3) Extent of remission. — If the obligation is joint, the presumption of remission, when applicable, pertains only to the share of the debtor who is in possession of the document; if solidary, to the total obligation. (4) Presumption applicable only to private document. — Article 1271 it speaks of a private document. The legal presumption of remission does not apply in the case of a public document because it is easy to obtain a copy of the same, being a public record. Payment, not remission of debt. Under the second paragraph of Article 1271, the renunciation of the action which the creditor had against the debtor may be nullified by a showing that the waiver is inofficious. In other words, the remission which the law assumes under the first paragraph

The debtor or his heirs may prove that the delivery of the document was really made in virtue of payment of the debt and not of remission. ART. 1272. Whenever the private document in which the debt appears is found in the possession of the debtor, it shall be presumed that the creditor delivered it voluntarily, unless the contrary is proved. (1189) Presumption in case document found in possession of debtor. Ordinarily, the document evidencing the debt is in the possession of the creditor. He has in his favor the legal presumption that his credit is as yet uncollected, unless the debtor proves satisfactorily, by one of the rules recognized in law, that he has already paid the claim. If the document is later found in the hands of the debtor and it is not known how he came into possession of the same, the presumption is that it was voluntarily delivered by the creditor. This presumption of voluntary delivery, in turn, gives rise to the presumption of remission. (Art. 1271.) It is believed, however, that the presumption of voluntary delivery should give rise to the presumption of payment, and only when it is known that indeed there is no payment should there be a presumption of remission. ART. 1273. The renunciation of the principal debt shall extinguish the accessory obligations; but the waiver of the latter shall leave the former in force. (1190) Effect of renunciation of principal debt on accessory obligation. The above provision follows the rule that the accessory follows the principal. While the accessory obligations cannot exist without the principal obligation, the latter may exist without the former. (see Art. 1230.) ART. 1274. It is presumed that the accessory obligation of pledge has been remitted when the thing pledged, after its delivery to the creditor, is found in the possession of the debtor, or of a third person who owns the thing. (1191a) Presumption in case thing pledged found in possession of debtor. In a contract of pledge (see Arts. 2085, 2093.), it is necessary that the thing pledged be placed in the possession of the creditor, or of a third person by common agreement. (Art. 2093.) A third person who is not a party to the principal obligation may secure the latter by pledging his own property. (Art. 2085, last par.) If the thing pledged is later found in the hands of the debtor or the third person, only the accessory obligation of pledge is presumed remitted, not the obligation itself. The debtor shall continue to be indebted but he does not have to return the thing pledged. The presumption yields to contrary evidence. It does not arise if the third person in possession of the thing pledged does not own the same. SECTION 4. — Confusion or Merger of Rights ART. 1275. The obligation is extinguished from the time the characters of creditor and debtor are merged in the same person. (1192a) Meaning of confusion or merger. Confusion or merger – meeting in one person of the qualities of creditor and debtor with respect to the same obligation. (4 Sanchez Roman 421.) Reason or basis for confusion. (1) The law treats confusion or merger as a mode of extinguishing obligations because if a debtor is his own creditor, enforcement of the obligation becomes absurd since a person cannot claim payment from himself. (2) Furthermore, when there is a confusion of rights, the purposes for which the obligation may have been created are deemed realized. Requisites of confusion. For a valid confusion or merger to the place, it is necessary that: (1) It must take place between the principal debtor and creditor; and (2) It must be complete and definite.

Confusion which takes place in the person of any of the latter does not extinguish the obligation. (1193) Effect of merger in the person of principal debtor or creditor. Merger in the person of the principal debtor or creditor extinguishes the obligation. Hence, the accessory obligation of guaranty is also extinguished in accordance with the principle that the accessory follows the principal. EXAMPLE: D is indebted to C with G as guarantor. The merger of the characters of debtor and creditor in D shall free G from liability as guarantor. Similarly, merger which takes place in the person of C benefits G because the extinction of the principal obligation carries with it that of the accessory obligation of guaranty. Effect of merger in the person of guarantor. The extinguishment of the accessory obligation does not carry with it that of the principal obligation. Consequently, merger which takes place in the person of the guarantor, while it extinguishes the guaranty, leaves the principal obligation in force. EXAMPLE: Suppose, in the example above, C assigns his credit to X, who, in turn, assigns the credit to G, the guarantor. In this case, the contract of guaranty is extinguished. However, D’s obligation to pay the principal obligation subsists. G now, as the new creditor, can demand payment from D. ART. 1277. Confusion does not extinguish a joint obligation except as regards the share corresponding to the creditor or debtor in whom the two characters concur. (1194) Confusion in a joint obligation. In a joint obligation, there are as many debts as there are debtors and as many credits as there are creditors, the debts and/or credits being considered distinct and separate from one another. (Art. 1208.) Each debtor has his own creditor to whom he is liable and confusion taking place in the person of any debtor or creditor does not affect the others. In other words, the confusion will extinguish only the share corresponding to the creditor or debtor in whom the two characters concur. (Art. 1277.) EXAMPLE: A, B, and C are jointly liable to D in the amount of P9,000.00 evidenced by a negotiable promissory note. D endorsed the note to E, who, in turn endorsed it to A. In this case, A’s share in the obligation is extinguished because of confusion in his person. However, the indebtedness of B and C in the amount of P3,000.00 each remains because as to them there is no confusion. Consequently, B and C would be liable to A, the new creditor, P3,000.00 each. Confusion in a solidary obligation. Merger in the person of one of the solidary debtors shall extinguish the entire obligation because it is also a merger in the other solidary debtors. (Art. 1215.) Remember that in a solidary obligation there is only one obligation and every debtor is individually responsible for the payment of the whole obligation. He who makes payment may claim reimbursement from his codebtors for the shares which correspond to them. (Art. 1217, par. 2.) EXAMPLE: In the example given, if the obligation of A, B, and C is solidary, the endorsement to A extinguishes the entire obligation of P9,000.00. A can demand reimbursement from B and C. Here, the basis of the right of A is not the original obligation which has been extinguished by the confusion which takes place in his person but the confusion itself. It is as if A paid the entire debt. He can, therefore, collect the proportionate shares belonging to B and C on an implied contract of reimbursement. SECTION 5. — Compensation ART. 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of each other. (1195) Compensation – extinguishment to the concurrent amount of the debts of two persons who, in their own right, are reciprocally principal debtors and creditors of

becomes null and void upon proof that it is inofficious.

ART. 1276. Merger which takes place in the person of the principal debtor or creditor benefits the guarantors.

each other. (Arts. 1278, 1290.) It involves the simultaneous balancing of two obligations in order to totally extinguish them if they are...