ARTICLE 1163

March 17, 2017

Art. 1163 Every Person obliged to give something is also obliged to take care of it with
proper diligence of a good father of a family unless the law or the stipulation of the
parties requires another standard of care.

Reason for provision – the obligation to deliver the thing would be illusionary if the
debtor and will pertain to another it is a condition suitable for its enjoyment by the
obligee for the purpose of contemplated.

Diligence Required – preserving the thing ,law requires the diligence of a good father of
a family

Effect of Breach – the obligation to preserve the thing to be delivered has its sanction in
the liability for damages imposed upon the debtor who fails the exercise of diligence of a
good father of a family preserving the thing. But if the failure of the debtor to preserve
the thing is due to no fault or negligence of his but fortuitous event or force. He is
exempte from the responsibility

ENGRACIO OBEJERA and MERCEDES INTAK, plaintiffs-appellees,

vs.
IGA SY, defendant-appellant.

Pedro Panganiban for appellant.

Jose Mayo Librea for appellees.

JARANILLA, J.:

By virtue of the appeal filed against the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Batangas annulling, on the ground of force and intimidation, the deed of transfer
executed on April 9, 1942 (Exhibit Y), whereby the plaintiffs and appellees agreed to
transfer to the defendant and appellant their property assessed at P2,230 in case they
failed to return to the defendant on December 31, 1942 the balance of P3,697 and
pieces of jewelry worth P400 allegedly deposited with the plaintiffs on January 2, 1942,
the above-entitled case was submitted to this court for review.

On December 13, 1941, plaintiffs and defendant sought refuge in the house of Leon
Villena, barrio lieutenant of Dalig, Batangas, Batangas, on account of the Japanese
invasion of the Philippines. plaintiffs and defendant, after consultation with their host
Leon Villena, decided to hide their things and valuables in a dug-out belonging to Leon
Villena about thirty meters away from his house. The defendant placed in said dug-out
her money allegedly amounting to P5,021 and jewelry worth P400 in her own container;
Leon Villena and his wife also placed therein their own things; the plaintiffs also placed
their things and money allegedly amounting to P3,000. They did this at night and
covered the dug-out with palay belonging to Leon Villena and the defendant Iga Sy.

On February 18, 1942, at the instance of the defendant who desired to move to another
house, the plaintiffs and the defendant, together with Leon Villena, among others, went
to the dug-out to take out the defendant’s container and discovered, to their
consternation, that their money and things, except for a few papers, had been lost.

One day during the first week of April, 1942, the defendant reported the loss of her
money and jewels, causing the arrest and investigation of Leon Villena, two others and
the plaintiff Engracio Obejera, who where released shortly after, except Engracio
Obejera who was released only on April 19, 1942 after he, with his wife, had consented
to execute Exhibit Y which document was sought to be annulled by the plaintiffs and
appellees herein. The defendant and appellant contends that she deposited her money
and jewelry with the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs, a/cknowledging liability for the loss
of her money and jewelry, offered to transfer their property under Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 666 and accordingly executed the document in question. On the other hand,
the plaintiffs deny the alleged deposit, deny knowledge of the loss of the defendant’s
money and jewelry, and claim that their consent to the deed of transfer was obtained
through violence and intimidation.

After a careful consideration of the nine assignments of error and examination of the
evidence of this case, the contention of the defendant and appellant cannot be
sustained.

The alleged deposit cannot be believed and is contrary to the ordinary course of nature
and the ordinary habits of life

that the plaintiffs and the defendant only sought refuge in his house; that neither the
plaintiffs nor the defendant had, therefore, control over, or absolute and exclusive
access, to the dug-out, as proved by the fact that when the defendant decided to take
her things with her because she was going to move to another house, two days before
the discovery of the loss,

Under these circumstances, it is hard to believe that plaintiff Engracio Obejera would
assume responsibility over the defendant’s things hidden in a place not belonging to him
but to Leon Villena, in whose house they only sought refuge and were like guests, and
especially at a time when the confusion and fear resulting from the Japanese invasion
and fast advance so gripped everyone that nobody could be sure of his own things and
even of his life.

the Supreme Court held:

In this bailment ordinary care and diligence are required of the bailee and he is not
liable for the inevitable loss or destruction of the chattel, not attributable to his fault. If
while the bailment continues, the chattel is destroyed, or stolen, or perishes, without
negligence on the bailee’s part, the loss as in other hirings, falls upon the owner, in
accordance with the maxim res perit domino
ARTICLE 1164
March 17, 2017

Article 1164

by: Gretzen M. Colona

The creditor has a right to the fruits of the thing from the time the obligation to deliver it arises.
However, he shall acquire no real right over it until the same has been delivered to him.
Real rights (jus in re)
–  A power over a specific thing (like the right of ownership or possession) and is binding on the
whole world. Non nudis pactis, sed traditionis dominia rerym transferatur.  As a consequence of
certain contracts, it is not agreement but tradition or delivery that transfers ownership.
Personal rights (jus in personam or jus ad rem)
– Power demandable by one person of another – to give, to do or not to do.
Need for Tradition or Delivery –
The transfer of the ownership in the contract of such transfer, does not produce the effect by the
fact of the mere consent, but is acquired by tradition and in the due observance of general
precepts. A creditor or a vendee cannot acquire a real right when the obligation to deliver arises.
He can only have a personal right to demand the delivery but no real rights until the said thing is
delivered to him. A contract which is simulated or genuine one, where there is no delivery of the
object, does not transfer ownership.
TITLE
THE FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,
plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
WILLIAM A. WILSON, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Hartigan, Marple, Rohde & Gutierrez for appellant.
F.G. Waite and H.D. Terrell for appellees.
MAPA, J.:
FACTS
Defendant Wilson was, on the 1st of October, 1902, an employee of the Government of the
Philippine Islands, as disbursing officer of the Bureau of Coast Guard and Transportation. For
the security of the Government the plaintiff company and another company. The American
Surety Company of New York, became sureties on the official bond of Wilson for the sum of $
15,000, United State currency. Wilson defaulted in the sum of $ 8,931.80, United States
currency, and the said two surety companies, after demand duly made upon them by the
Government, were compelled to pay and, as a matter of fact, did pay to said Government, in
accordance with said bond, the sum of $ 4,465.90, United States currency, each. Wilson, who
had left the Philippine Islands, was captured in the city of Montreal, Canada, for the purpose of
being tried before the courts of the Philippine Islands for the defalcation of said sum. When
apprehended Wilson had on his person the sum of $ 785 in gold. On October 17, 1904, the
plaintiff filed a complaint against Wilson the money that was confiscated from Wilson was
transferred to the care of Mr. Branagan the Insular Treasurer. On October 26, 1904, H.D. Terrell
filed a complaint as intervenor in the case, alleging that on September 3, of the same year, the
defendant Wilson had ceded and transferred to the said Terrell all of his, the said Wilson’s rights
in and to the said $785 in payment on account of a larger sum then owed by said Wilson to the
said H.D. Terrell for professional services already rendered and to be rendered as attorney for
said Wilson. Terrell claims the right of ownership in and to the said sum and asks that the same
be delivered to him as the legitimate owner to the exclusion of the other parties in the case. The
Trial court rendered a decision in favour of Terrell awarding the rights to the money in question.
The Plaintiff, The Fidelity and Deposit Company appealed  and said that the court erred in
rendering judgment in favor of the intervenor H.D. Terrell for the $785 in the hands of the
depositary. The Supreme court reversed the decision of the lower court and that the payment
and delivery of said funds be made to Terrell and to the appellant.
Issue
Whether or not the lower court erred in granting the intervenor the ownership of the amount in
question.
Rulings
” The ownership and other property rights are acquired and transmitted by law, by gift, by
testate or intestate succession, and, in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition.” And as
the logical application of this disposition article 1095 prescribes the following: “A creditor has the
rights to the fruits of a thing from the time the obligation to deliver it arises. However, he shall
not acquire a real right.” (and the ownership is surely such) “until the property has been
delivered to him.”
Held
Yes, because even thou the intervenor have a written agreement which was executed by the
Wilson giving his rights, there was no delivery took place. Even he has a personal right to
demand from Wilson the said agreement still he has no real rights over it until it is delivered to
him.
Many thanks & God bless.
Article 1165
April 24, 2017

When what is to be delivered is a determinate thing, the creditor, in addition to

the right granted him by article 1170, may compel the debtor to make a delivery.

If the thing is indeterminate or generic, he may ask the obligation to be complied

with the expense of the debtor.

if the obligor delays, or has promised to deliver the thing to two or more persons
who do not have the same interest, he shall be responsible for fortuitous events
until he has effected the delivery.

Classification of Obligation from the view point of subject matter

1. Real Obligations (to give)

2. a specific thing
3. a generic or indeterminate thing
4. Personal obligations (to do or not to do)

Remedies of the creditor when the debtor fails to deliver a determinate thing

1. Action for specific performance

2. Action to rescind or resolve the obligation
3. Complaint for damages

Liability of the debtor for loss of the thing due to a fortuitous event

General Rule

“No person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable”

Question:

If the obligee delays the performance of the obligation and a fortuitous event occurs,;
the specific prestation is lost, is the obligation extinguished?

Answer
No. the obligee has incurred delay before the specific prestation is lost so therefore he
must bear the damages.

Exceptions

1. If the obligor delays

2. if the obligor is guilty in bad faith

Kinds of delay

1. Ordinary Delay – Failure to perform an obligation in a specific time

2. Extraordinary Delay/Legal delay/default – Non-fulfillment of obligation that arises after
extrajudicial or judicial demand.