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.

However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay may exist:

(1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declare; or

(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.

In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins. (1100a)

Ang mga obligadong mag hatid o magsagawa ng isang bagay ay mababalam mula sa oras na ang obligee ay judicially o extra judicially na hiningi na maisagawa o maihatid ang bagay na ito.

Ngunit, ang paghingi o pag demand ng obligee o ng nagpautang ay hindi kinakailangan upang masabi na mayroon nang balam sa mga sitwasyon na ito:

1. Kapag nakasaad ito sa obligasyon o sa batas.
2. Kapag ayon sa kallikasan ng obligasyon na ang pag tatakda ng oras ay ang nag cocontrol na motibo ng pagtatala ng kontrata.
3. Kapag ang demand o paghingi ay walang bisa. Katulad ng pagkakataon na naisakatuparan na ng obligor ang bagay na ito ng higit pa sa kakayahan nyang maikumpleto o maisakatuparan ito.

Sa reciprocal obligations, wala sa sino mang piging ay mababalam kung ang isa ay hindi isasakatuparan o hindi handa na isagawa ang bagay na ito sa tamang paraan. Kapag nagawa na ng isang piging ang kanyang obligasyon, ang balam ng isa ay magsisimula.

The delay contemplated in the article is legal delay or default and not ordinary delay. To put an obligor in default (or mora), there must be demand made upon him for the performance of the obligation either judicially or extrajudicially.

Demand is not necessary to place the obligor in default under the following circumstances:

1. When the law or obligation expressly declares;
2. When from the nature of the contract, it appears that the time is of the essence and this is the motivating factor in the establishment of the contract;
3. When demand would be useless;
4. When the debtor admits, he is in default.

Classes of Default

1. Mora solvendi – the default on the part of the debtor/obligor;
2. Mora accipiendi – the default on the part of the creditor/obligee;
3. Compensatio morae – the default on the part of both the debtor/obligor and creditor/obligee which arises in reciprocal obligations the effect is the default of one party neutralizes the default of the other.

Article 1180

When the debtor binds himself to pay when his means permit him to do so, the obligation shall be deemed to be one with a period, subject to the provisions of Article 1197. (n)

Kapag ang may utang ay ibinigkis kanyang sarili upang bayaran ang kanyang pag kakautang kapag ang kanyang pamamaraan/kakayahan ay pinahihintulutan siya upang gawin ito, ang obligasyon ay itinuturing bilang isa na may takdang panahon, na napapailalim sa mga probisyon ng Article1197

 

• When the debtor binds himself to pay forms of promise or commitment, the obligation is deemed with a period or term.
• The moment of payment is dependent upon the will of the debtor.

Note:    As the time of payment is not fixed, the same must be first fixed first before any action for collection should be allowed. This means, the creditor cannot immediately file an action for collection of the sum promised to be paid.

 

Phrases Indicating A Term or Period

1. A commitment to pay “little by little”
2. “As soon as possible”
3. “As soon as I have money”
4. When the creditor agreed “to wait until such time the debtor could pay the full indebtedness.”
5. Obligation to be paid “in partial payments”

 

Case

1. R. no. L – 5515

Levy Hermanos Vs. Pedro Paterno

 

Facts:

1. Pedro Paterno (defendant) executed a document in favor of Levy Hermanos (plaintiff), indicating that a balance of P6,177.35 will be payable in partial payments.
2. The defendant made several payments and later claimed to establish the installment of P30.00 per month payment.
3. The plaintiff disagreed and brought suit and asked that he should be paid the sum of P5,862.35 (unpaid balance) or that a period be specified within which he should pay the same, in case the court should deem such manner of payment more equitable.
4. During the trial it was agreed by the parties that the sum which the defendant owed the plaintiff was P5,317.35
5. In view of the evidence adduced during the trial, a monthly payment of P200 would be reasonable compliance with the agreement to pay the debt in installment. The payment will be rendered on or before the 15^th of each month.
6. The defendant appealed that:
   1. The obligation is one of payment by installment, its fulfillment cannot be required immediately;
   2. No fixed day was specified for its fulfillment;
   3. Payment is undetermined or was not fixed by parties when they executed the contract.

 

ISSUE:

            Whether or not the defendant should pay the plaintiff according to the period fixed by court.

 

HELD:

Yes. The trial court acted in accordance with the law in exercising said power by fixing the duration of the period on the basis that the payment of the debt should be made at the rate of P200.00 a month.

There was no abuse of judicial discretion in fixing such a rate, considering the importance of the obligatin and the absence of any stipulation of the interest in favor of the creditor.

Article 1308

The contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them. (1256a)

Ang kasunduan ay dapat magbigkis sa isat isa, ang bisa o pagtupad ay hindi maaring ipaubaya sa kagustuhan ng isa sa kanila.

Discussion:

Mutuality of contracts. It is but natural and logical that the contract shall bind both contracting parties. This is the principle of mutuality contract. It is based on the essential quality of the parties. It is incongruous to bind one party and let free the other party from responsibility.

Obligations arising from contract have the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith.

The binding effect of a contract on both parties is based on the principle that the obligations arising from contract have the force of law between the contracting parties, and there must be mutuality between them based essentially on their quality under which it is repugnant to have one party bound by the contract while leaving the other free therefrom.

Validity or Compliance. Cannot be left to the will of the one of the contracting parties.

What is meant here is that the contract cannot have any stipulation authorizing one of the contracting parties:

To determine whether or not the contract shall be valid, or;

To determine whether or not the contract shall be fulfilled

However, a third person may be authorized to determine the performance or fulfillment of the contract but not to determine its validity. He must not however make the determination of the fulfillment evidently equitable.

Stipulations allowing a party to cancel or rescind do not militate against mutuality of contracts.

No judicial action for rescission is necessary where the revocation of the contract is authorized for the violations of its terms and conditions.

Mutual cancellation. The general rule is that a party cannot revoke or renounce a contract without the consent of the other. They may however mutually cancel their contract under such terms and conditions as they deem wise.