by Nil Jay V. Perolina
Chapter 3 - Different Kinds of Obligations
Art. 1214. The debtor may pay any one of the solidary creditors; but if any demand, judicial or extrajudicial, has been made by one of them, payment should be made to him. (1142a)
What is article 1214 about?
It is about effect of demand by a solidary creditor.
What is the meaning of Article 1214?
Any of the solidary creditors may accept full performance of the obligation and such payment when accepted by any of the solidary creditors will extinguish the obligation.
What is the reason behind the article?
The solidary creditors share the same right to demand for the performance of the obligation so such payment when accepted by one of them will extinguish the obligation.
What is the general rule in Article 1214?
The debtor may pay any one of the solidary creditors.
Illustration/Example
In an obligation wherein D, an obligor, has an obligation to pay the solidary creditors A, B and C of the loan amounting Php 10,000.00, obligor D can pay the solidary creditor A and such payment when accepted by A as a solidary creditors will extinguish the obligation.
What is the exception on the general rule?
If any demand, judicial or extrajudicial has been made by any of the solidary creditors, payment should be made to him.
Illustration/Example
In our previous example, an obligation wherein D, an obligor, has an obligation to pay the solidary creditors A, B and C of the loan amounting Php 10,000.00 and then B filed a court case, obligor D should pay the solidary creditor B and such payment to B as a solidary creditor will extinguish the obligation.
What is the effect if the debtor pays to a creditor who did not demand?
The same is deemed a payment made to a wrong person, in so far as the shares of the others in the credit are concerned. In other words, the payment made to any other creditor will not extinguish the obligation except insofar as the payee’s share is concerned.
What will happen if there are two or more demands made by the other creditors?
In such case wherein two or more demands are made by the other creditors, the first demand must be given priority.
How does the rule apply to a mixed solidarity?
In mixed solidarity, when one creditor makes a demand upon one of the debtors, the latter cannot pay to any other creditor but the one who made the demand. The prohibition, however, does not apply to the other debtors upon whom demand has not been served, and hence they may pay to any creditor who may not be the one who made the demand.
Art. 1215.
Novation, compensation, confusion or remission of the debt, made by any of the solidary creditors or with any of the solidary debtors, shall extinguish the obligation, without prejudice to the provisions of article 1219.
The creditor who may have executed any of these acts, as well as he who collects the debt, shall be liable to the others for the share in the obligation corresponding to them. (1143)
What is the article 1215 about?
It is about the liability of solidary creditor in case of novation, compensation, confusion, or remission.
What is the reason behind Article 1215?
Novation, compensation, confusion, and remission are modes or causes of extinguishment of obligations. (Will be discussed further in Art. 1231.)
In case of any of these modes or causes of extinguishment of obligation it is but logical that the creditor who executed any of these acts should be liable to the others for their corresponding shares considering that such acts are prejudicial to them.
1st paragraph-Novation, compensation, confusion or remission of the debt, made by any of the solidary creditors or with any of the solidary debtors, shall extinguish the obligation, without prejudice to the provisions of article 1219.
What are the modes of extinguishing obligations?
1. Novation – change of creditors, debtors or the principal condition of the contract; must be clear to release the solidary obligation of the debtors.
Illustration/Example:
B enters into a contract with C for B to paint C’s house for Php 5,000. B then enters into a separate contract with C and D for D to paint C’s house and to discharge his duties to C. The new contract is called a novation.
2. Compensation – when two persons, in their own rights, are creditors and debtors of each other. It is otherwise known as "Offsetting" or in tagalog ‘quits lang’
Illustration/Example:
X owes B in amount of 100. B on the other hand owes X in amount of 20. If both debts are due and payable today. So, X only owes B in amount of 80
3. Confusion – merger of the characters of creditor and debtor in the same person.
Illustrations/Examples:
a. A owes B Php 5,000. B dies and in his will, he makes A his only heir. The debt is extinguished as A is both debtor to the estate and therefore the creditor also, as sole heir.
b. D borrowed money from C. As security, D mortgaged his land. Subsequently, D sold the land to C.
4. Remission – condonation of an obligation.
Illustration/Example:
X only repays a portion of the money he owes to Y. However, Y agrees to accept it as a final settlement of the debt. Y’s act of remission discharges the contract.
2nd paragraph-The creditor who may have executed any of these acts, as well as he who collects the debt, shall be liable to the others for the share in the obligation corresponding to them. (1143)
What is the meaning of the 2nd paragraph of Article 1214?
The law clearly provides that the creditor who extinguished the obligation shall be liable to the others for the share in the obligations corresponding to them.
Illustration/Example:
If A, B and C are solidary debtors of D, E and F in the amount of P15,000 and A informs D that he is recommending X to pay the debt provided that A is released from the obligation, and X and D agreed to the change, there is a novation on the part of A (since there is novation, there is already a mode of extinguishment of obligation). Not only A is released, but also B and C. Now as per of 2nd paragraph of Article 115, solidary creditor D then will be liable to the other solidary creditors E and F.
Case Digest from Original Case
Citation:
Ronquillo v CA, 132 SCRA 247, 1984
Case Docket:
G.R. No. L-55138
Date:
September 28, 1984
Petitioner:
Ernesto V. Ronquillo
Respondents:
Honorable Court of Appeals and Antonio P. So
Ponente:
Cuevas, J.
Counsel for Petitioner:
Gloria A. Fortun
Counsel for Respondent:
Roselino Reyes Isler
FACTS:
Petitioner Ernesto V. Ronquillo was one of four (4) defendants in Civil Case No. 33958 of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (now the Regional Trial Court), Branch XV filed by private respondent Antonio P. So, on July 23, 1979, for the collection of the sum of P17,498.98 plus attorney's fees and costs. The other defendants were Offshore Catertrade Inc., Johnny Tan and Pilar Tan. The amount of P117,498.98 sought to be collected represents the value of the checks issued by said defendants in payment for foodstuffs delivered to and received by them. The said checks were dishonored by the drawee bank.
On December 13, 1979, the lower court rendered its Decision that Plaintiff agrees to reduce its total claim to Php 110,000 which will be two (2) sets of Php 55,000 from the original Php 117,000 and that the defendants bind themselves individually and jointly. Both parties also agreed that failure on the part of either party to comply, the innocent party will be entitled to an execution of the decision based on the compromise agreement and the defaulting party agrees and hold themselves to reimburse the innocent party for attorney's fees, execution fees and other fees related with the execution.
Defendants then failed to pay the initial amount on due date which led the plaintiff to file Motion for Execution which was then opposed by the then Petitioner. He then prayed that private respondent be ordered to accept his payment in the amount of P13,750.00 as his pro rata share on the initial payment. On the other hand, the lower court ordered that regardless of whatever the compromise agreement has intended the payment whether jointly or individually, or jointly and severally, the fact is that only P27,500.00 has been paid. There appears to be a non-payment in accordance with the compromise agreement of the amount of P27,500.00 on or before December 24, 1979. The parties are reminded that the payment is condition sine qua non to the lifting of the preliminary attachment and the execution of an affidavit of desistance.
On March 20, 1980, Special Sheriff Eulogio C. Juanson of Rizal, issued a notice of sheriff's sale, for the sale of certain furniture and appliances found in petitioner's residence to satisfy the sum of P82,500.00. The public sale was scheduled for April 2, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Order of Execution dated March 17, 1980 which was set for hearing on March 25, 1980, was upon motion of private respondent reset to April 2, 1980 at 8:30 a.m. Realizing the actual threat to property rights poised by the re-setting of the hearing of motion for reconsideration for April 2, 1980 at 8:30 a.m. such that if his motion for reconsideration would be denied he would have no more time to obtain a writ from the appellate court to stop the scheduled public sale of his personal properties at 10:00 a.m. of the same day, April 2, 1980, petitioner filed on March 26, 1980 a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the then Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-10573), praying at the same time for the issuance of a restraining order to stop the public sale.
ISSUES:
1. Was the filing of a petition for certiorari before the then Court of Appeals against the Order of Execution issued by the lower court, dated March 17, 1980, proper, despite the pendency of a motion for reconsideration of the same questioned Order?
2. What is the nature of the liability of the defendants (including petitioner), was it merely joint, or was it several or solidary?
RULING:
Yes, regarding the first issue raised, suffice it to state that while as a general rule, a motion for reconsideration should precede recourse to certiorari in order to give the trial court an opportunity to correct the error that it may have committed, the said rule is not absolutes and may be dispensed with in instances where the filing of a motion for reconsideration would serve no useful purpose, such as when the motion for reconsideration would raise the same point stated in the motion or where the error is patent for the order is void or where the relief is extremely urgent, as in cases where execution had already been ordered where the issue raised is one purely of law.
On the second issue, the defendants obligated themselves to pay their obligation "individually and jointly".
The term "individually" has the same meaning as "collectively", "separately", "distinctively", respectively or "severally". An agreement to be "individually liable" undoubtedly creates a several obligation, and a "several obligation is one by which one individual binds himself to perform the whole obligation.
The obligation in the case at bar being described as "individually and jointly", the same is therefore enforceable against one of the numerous obligors.
_________________________________________________________
Thank you very much! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment