Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 205 views

    Arco Pulp v. Lim

    Uploaded by

    Brian Jonathan Paraan
    1) Lim supplied scrap paper to Arco Pulp and Paper worth PHP 7.2 million based on a contract allowing Arco to either pay Lim or deliver finished products of equal value. 2) Arco later entered an agreement with Megapack to deliver finished products, claiming this substituted their obligation to Lim, but Lim filed a collection case. 3) The court found no novation occurred because a novation requires consent of the creditor to substitute obligations, which Lim did not provide, and Arco's agreement was an alternative obligation that was not properly exercised by notice to Lim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Arco Pulp v. Lim

    Uploaded by

    Brian Jonathan Paraan
    205 views2 pages
    1) Lim supplied scrap paper to Arco Pulp and Paper worth PHP 7.2 million based on a contract allowing Arco to either pay Lim or deliver finished products of equal value. 2) Arco later entered an agreement with Megapack to deliver finished products, claiming this substituted their obligation to Lim, but Lim filed a collection case. 3) The court found no novation occurred because a novation requires consent of the creditor to substitute obligations, which Lim did not provide, and Arco's agreement was an alternative obligation that was not properly exercised by notice to Lim.

    Original Description:

    digest oblicon

    Original Title

    Arco pulp v. Lim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Lim supplied scrap paper to Arco Pulp and Paper worth PHP 7.2 million based on a contract allowing Arco to either pay Lim or deliver finished products of equal value. 2) Arco later entered an agreement with Megapack to deliver finished products, claiming this substituted their obligation to Lim, but Lim filed a collection case. 3) The court found no novation occurred because a novation requires consent of the creditor to substitute obligations, which Lim did not provide, and Arco's agreement was an alternative obligation that was not properly exercised by notice to Lim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    205 views2 pages

    Arco Pulp v. Lim

    Uploaded by

    Brian Jonathan Paraan
    1) Lim supplied scrap paper to Arco Pulp and Paper worth PHP 7.2 million based on a contract allowing Arco to either pay Lim or deliver finished products of equal value. 2) Arco later entered an agreement with Megapack to deliver finished products, claiming this substituted their obligation to Lim, but Lim filed a collection case. 3) The court found no novation occurred because a novation requires consent of the creditor to substitute obligations, which Lim did not provide, and Arco's agreement was an alternative obligation that was not properly exercised by notice to Lim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ARCO PULP AND PAPER CO. and CANDIDA SANTOS v. DAN T.

    LIM
    G.R. No. 206806, June 25, 2014
    Leonen, J

    Facts:
    Lim is the sole proprietor of Quality Paper and Plastic Products, Enterprises.
    Petitioners entered into a contract with Lim for the latter to supply the former with
    scrap papers worth Php 7,220,968.31. The parties allegedly agreed that Arco Pulp
    and Paper would either pay Dan T. Lim the value of the raw materials or deliver to
    him their finished products of equivalent value. Subsequently petitioners entered
    into an agreement with Megapack Container Corporation wherein it bound itself to
    deliver its finished products to the latter and that Lim would be the supplier for said
    products. Petitioners failed to pay their obligation with Lim causing the latter to file
    an action for collection of sum of money against them. Petitioners contends that
    there has been a novation of the original obligation with Lim through the agreement
    with Megapack Container Corporation.

    Issue:
    Whether or not there has been novation of the obligation against Lim.

    Held:
    In general, there are two modes of substituting the person of the debtor: (1)
    expromision and (2) delegacion. In expromision, the initiative for the change does
    not come from and may even be made without the knowledge of the debtor,
    since it consists of a third persons assumption of the obligation. As such, it logically
    requires the consent of the third person and the creditor. In delegacion, the debtor
    offers, and the creditor accepts, a third person who consents to the substitution and
    assumes the obligation; thus, the consent of these three persons are necessary.
    Both modes of substitution by the debtor require the consent of the creditor.

    Novation may also be extinctive or modificatory. It is extinctive when an old


    obligation is terminated by the creation of a new one that takes the place of the
    former. It is merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the extent that
    it remains compatible with the amendatory agreement. Whether extinctive or
    modificatory, novation is made either by changing the object or the principal
    conditions, referred to as objective or real novation; or by substituting the person of
    the debtor or subrogating a third person to the rights of the creditor, an act known
    as subjective or personal novation. For novation to take place, the following
    requisites must concur:

    1) There must be a previous valid obligation.


    2) The parties concerned must agree to a new contract.
    3) The old contract must be extinguished.
    4) There must be a valid new contract.
    Novation may also be express or implied. It is express when the new obligation
    declares in unequivocal terms that the old obligation is extinguished. It is implied
    when the new obligation is incompatible with the old one on every point. The test of
    incompatibility is whether the two obligations can stand together, each one with its
    own independent existence.

    The obligation between the parties was an alternative obligation. The rule on
    alternative obligations is governed by Article 1199 of the Civil Code, which states:

    Article 1199. A person alternatively bound by different prestations shall


    completely perform one of them.
    The creditor cannot be compelled to receive part of one and part of the other
    undertaking. In an alternative obligation, there is more than one object, and the
    fulfillment of one is sufficient, determined by the choice of the debtor who generally
    has the right of election. The right of election is extinguished when the party who
    may exercise that option categorically and unequivocally makes his or her choice
    known.

    The choice of the debtor must also be communicated to the creditor who must
    receive notice of it since: The object of this notice is to give the creditor opportunity
    to express his consent, or to impugn the election made by the debtor, and only after
    said notice shall the election take legal effect when consented by the creditor, or if
    impugned by the latter, when declared proper by a competent court.

    According to the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court, the
    original contract between the parties was for respondent to deliver scrap papers
    worth Php 7,220,968.31 to petitioner Arco Pulp and Paper. The payment for this
    delivery became petitioner Arco Pulp and Papers obligation. By agreement,
    petitioner Arco Pulp and Paper, as the debtor, had the option to either (1) pay the
    price or (2) deliver the finished products of equivalent value to respondent.

    You might also like