EXTINGUISHING OBLIGATIONS

GENERAL PROVISIONS

1231. Obligations are extinguished:

1. by payment or performance
2. by loss of the thing due
3. by condonation or remission
4. by confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor
5. by compensation
6. by novation
Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as annulment, rescission, fulfillment
of a resolutory condition, and prescription, are governed elsewhere in this Code.

1232. Payment means not only the delivery of money but also the performance, in any
other manner of an obligation.

Payment means not only delivery of money but also the performance.
• It is the fulfillment of the prestation due that extinguishes the obligation by the
realization of the purposes for which it was constituted
• It is a juridical act which is voluntary, licit and made with the intent to extinguish an
obligation
• Requisites:
1. person who pays
2. the person to whom payment is made
3. the thing to be paid
4. the manner, time and place of payment etc.
• The paying as well as the one receiving should have the requisite capacity
• Kinds:
1. normal –when the debtor voluntarily performs the prestation stipulated
2. abnormal – when he is forced by means of a judicial proceeding either to
comply with prestation or to pay indemnity

1233. A debt shall not be understood to have been paid unless the thing or service in
which the obligation consists has been completely delivered or rendered, as the case
may be.

• States 2 requisites of payment:

a.) identity of prestation - the very thing or service due must be delivered or released
b.) integrity – prestation must be fulfilled completely
• Time of payment – the payment or performance must be on the date stipulated (may
be made even on Sundays or on any holiday, although some states like the Negotiable
Instruments Law states that payment in such case may be made on the next
succeeding business day)
• The burden of proving that the obligation has been extinguished by payment devolves
upon the debtor who offers such a defense to the claim of the plaintiff creditor
• The issuance of a receipt is a consequence of usage and good faith which must be
observed (although our Code has no provision on this) and the refusal of the creditor to
issue a receipt without just cause is a ground for consignation under

Art 1256 ( if a receipt has been issued by payee, the testimony alone of payer would be
insufficient to prove alleged payments)

1234. If the obligation has been substantially performed in good faith, the obligor may
recover as though there had been a strict and complete fulfillment, less damages
suffered by the obligee.
• In order that there may be substantial performance of an obligation, there must have
been an attempt in good faith to perform, without any willful or intentional departure
therefrom
• The non-performance of a material part of a contract will prevent the performance
from amounting to a substantial compliance
• A party who knowingly and willfully fails to perform his contract in any respect, or
omits to perform a material part of it cannot be permitted under the protection of this
rule to compel the other party to perform; and the trend of the more recent decisions is
to hold that the percentage of omitted or irregular performance may in and of itself be
sufficient to show that there has not been a substantial performance
• The party who has substantially performed may enforce specific performance of the
obligation of the other party or may recover damages for their breach upon an
allegation of performance, without proof of complete fulfillment.
• The other party, on the other hand, may by an independent action before he is sued,
or by a counterclaim after commencement of a suit against him, recover from the first
party the damages which he has sustained by the latter’s failure to completely fulfill his
obligation

1235 – When the oblige accepts the performance, knowing its incompleteness or
irregularity, and without expressing any protest or objection, the obligation is deemed
fully complied with
● A person entering into a contract has a right to insist on its performance in all
particulars, according to its meaning and spirit. But if he chooses to waive any of the
terms introduced for his own benefit, he may do so.
● But he is not obliged to accept anything else in place of that which he has contracted
for and if he does not waive this right, the other party cannot recover against him
without performing all the stipulations on is part
● To constitute a waiver, there must be an intentional relinquishment of a known right.
A waiver will not result from a mere failure to assert a claim for defective
performance/payment. There must have been acceptance of the defective performance
with actual knowledge if the incompleteness or defect, under circumstances that would
indicate an intention to consider the performance as complete and renounce any claim
arising from the defect
● A creditor cannot object because of defects in performance resulting from his own
acts or directions

1236. The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third person
who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation, unless there is a stipulation to
the contrary. Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has
paid, except that if he paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he
can recover only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor
● Reason for this article: whenever a third person pays there is a modification of the
prestation that is due.
● Generally, the 3rd person who paid another’s debt is entitled to recover the full
amount he paid. The law, however limits his recovery to the amount by which the
debtor has been benefited, if the debtor has no knowledge of, or has expressed his
opposition to such payment
● If the debt has been remitted, paid compensated or prescribed, a payment by a third
person would constitute a payment of
what is not due; his remedy would be against the person who received the payment
under such conditions and not against the debtor who did not benefit from the payment
● payment against debtor’s will – even if payment of the third party is against the will
of the debtor, upon payment by the third party, the obligation between the debtor and
creditor is already extinguished

1237. Whoever pays on behalf of the debtor without the knowledge or against the will
of the latter, cannot compel the creditor to subrogate him in his rights, such as those
arising from a mortgage, guaranty or penalty
• This article gives to the third person who paid only a simple personal action for
reimbursement, without the securities, guaranties and other rights recognized in the
creditor, which are extinguished by the payment

1238. Payment made by a third person who does not intend to be reimbursed by the
debtor is deemed to be a donation, which requires the debtor’s consent/ but the
payment is in any case valid as to the creditor who has accepted it
ART 1239. In obligations to give, payment made by one who does not have the free
disposal of the thing due and capacity to alienate it shall not be valied, without
prejudice to the provisions of article 1427 under the Title on “Natural Obligations”
● consignation will not be proper here. In case the creditor accepts the payment, the
payment will not be valid except in the case provided in article 1427
1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been
constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it
● the authority of a person to receive payment for the creditor may be
a.) legal – conferred by law (e.g.,guardian of the incapacitated, administrator of the
estate of the deceased)
b.) conventional – when the authority has been given by the creditor himself (e.g.,
agent who is appointed to collect from the debtor
• payment made by the debtor to a wrong party does not extinguish the obligation as
to the creditor (void), if there is no fault or negligence which can be imputed to the
latter (even when the debtor acted in utmost good faith, or through error induced by
the fraud of the 3rd person). It does not prejudice the creditor and the accrual of
interest is not suspended by it

1241. Payment to a person who is incapacitated to administer his property shall be valid
if he has kept the thing delivered, or insofar as the payment has been beneficial to him.
Payment made to a third person shall also be valid insofar as it has redounded to the
benefit of the creditor. Such benefit to the creditor need not be proved in the
following cases:
(1) If after the payment, the third person acquires the creditor's rights;
(2) If the creditor ratifies the payment to the third person;
(3) If by the creditor's conduct, the debtor has been led to believe that the third person
had authority to receive the payment. (1163a)
● payment shall be considered as having benefited the incapacitated person if he made
an intelligent and reasonable use thereof, for purposes necessary or useful to him, such
as that which his legal representative would have or could have done under similar
circumstances, even if at the time of the complaint the effect of such use no longer
exists (e.g., taxes on creditor’s property, money to extinguish a mortgage on creditor’s
property)
● the debtor is not released from liability by a payment to one who is not the creditor
nor one authorized to receive the payment, even if the debtor believed in good faith
that he is the creditor, except to the extent that the payment inured to the benefit of
the creditor
● in addition to those mentioned above, payment to a third person releases the debtor:
a.) when, without notice of the assignment of credit, he pays to the original creditor
b.) when in good faith he pays to one in possession of the credit
● even when the creditor receives no benefit from the payment to a third person, he
cannot demand payment anew, if the mistake of the debtor was due to the fault of the
creditor

1242. Payment made in good faith to any person in possession of the credit shall
release the debtor. (1164)
● the person in possession of the credit is neither the creditor nor one authorized by
him to receive payment, but appears under the circumstances of the case, to be the
creditor. He appears to be the owner of the credit, although in reality, he may not be
the owner (e.g., an heir who enters upon the hereditary estate and collects the credits
thereof, but who is later deprived of the inheritance because of incapacity to succeed)
● it is necessary not only that the possession of the credit be legal, but also that the
payment be in good faith

1243. Payment made to the creditor by the debtor after the latter has been judicially
ordered to retain the debt shall not be valid. (1165)
• the payment to the creditor after the credit has been attached or garnished is void as
to the party who obtained the attachment or garnishment, to the extent of the amount
of the judgment in his favor.
• The debtor upon whom garnishment order is served can always deposit the money in
court by way of consignation and thus relieve himself from further liability

1244. The debtor of a thing cannot compel the creditor to receive a different one,
although the latter may be of the same value as, or more valuable than that which is
due. In obligations to do or not to do, an act or forbearance cannot be substituted by
another act or forbearance against the obligee's will. (1166a)
• Upon agreement of consent of the creditor, the debtor may deliver a different thing or
perform a different prestation in lieu of that stipulated. In this case there may be dation
in payment or novation
• The defects of the thing delivered may be waived by the creditor, if he expressly so
declares or if, with knowledge thereof, he accepts the thing without protest or disposes
of it or consumes it

1245. Dation in payment, whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of

a debt in money, shall be governed by the law of sales. (n)
• This is the delivery and transmission of ownership of a thing by the debtor to the
creditor as an accepted equivalent of the performance of the obligation.
• The property given may consist not only of a thing but also of a real right (such as a
usufruct)
• Considered as a novation by change of the object
• Where the debt is money, the law on sale shall govern; in this case, the act is deemed
to be a sale with the amount of the obligation to the extent that it is extinguished being
considered as price
• Difference between Dation and Cession (see Art. 1255)
1246. When the obligation consists in the delivery of an indeterminate or generic thing,
whose quality and
circumstances have not been stated, the creditor cannot demand a thing of superior
quality. Neither can the debtor deliver a thing of inferior quality. The purpose of the
obligation and other circumstances shall be taken into consideration. (1167a)
● If there is disagreement between the debtor and the creditor as to the quality of the
thing delivered, the court should decide whether it complies with the obligation, taking
into consideration the purpose and other circumstances of the obligation
● Both the creditor and the debtor may waive the benefit of this article
● see Art. 1244
1247. Unless it is otherwise stipulated, the extrajudicial expenses required by the
payment shall be for the account of the debtor. With regard to judicial costs, the Rules
of Court shall govern. (1168a)
● This is because the payment is the debtor’s duty and it inures to his benefit in that he
is discharged from the burden of the
obligation

1248. Unless there is an express stipulation to that effect, the creditor cannot be
compelled partially to receive the prestations in which the obligation consists. Neither
may the debtor be required to make partial payments.

However, when the debt is in part liquidated and in part unliquidated, the creditor may
demand and the debtor may effect the payment of the former without waiting for the
liquidation of the latter. (1169a)
● The creditor who refuses to accept partial prestations does not incur delay except
when there is abuse of right or if good faith requires acceptance
● This article does not apply to obligations where there are several subjects or where
the various parties are bound under different terms and conditions
1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it
is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the
Philippines. The delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or
other mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they
have been cashed, or when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired.
In the meantime, the action derived from the original obligation shall be held in the
abeyance. (1170)
● LEGAL TENDER means such currency which in a given jurisdiction can be used for the
payment of debts, public and private, and which cannot be refused by the creditor
● so long as the notes were legal tender at the time they were paid or delivered, the
person accepting them must suffer the loss if thereafter they became valueless
● the provisions of the present article have been modified by RA No. 529 which states
that payments of all monetary obligations should now be made in currency which is
legal tender in the Phils. A stipulation providing payment in a foreign currency is null
and void but it does not invalidate the entire contract
● A check, whether a manager’s check or an ordinary check is not legal tender and an
offer of the check in payment of debt is not a valid tender of payment

1250. In case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated should

supervene, the value of the currency at the time of the establishment of the obligation
shall be the basis of payment, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. (n)
• Applies only where a contract or agreement is involved. It does not apply where the
obligation to pay arises from law, independent of contracts
• Extraordinary inflation of deflation may be said to be that which is unusual or beyond
the common fluctuations in the value of the currency , which parties could not have
reasonably foreseen or which was manifestly beyond their contemplation at the time
when the obligation was constituted
1251. Payment shall be made in the place designated in the obligation. There being no
express stipulation and if the undertaking is to deliver a determinate thing, the payment
shall be made wherever the thing might be at the moment the obligation was
constituted. In any other case the place of payment shall be the domicile of the debtor.
• If the debtor changes his domicile in bad faith or after he has incurred in delay, the
additional expenses shall be borne by him. These provisions are without prejudice to
venue under the Rules of Court.(1171a)
• Since the law fixes the place of payment at the domicile of the debtor, it is the duty of
the creditor to go there and receive payment; he should bear the expenses in this case
because the debtor cannot be made to shoulder the expenses which the creditor incurs
in performing a duty imposed by law and which is for his benefit.
• But if the debtor changes his domicile in bad faith or after he has incurred in delay,
then the additional expenses shall be borne by him
• When the debtor has been required to remit money to the creditor, the latter bears
the risks and the expenses of the transmission. In cases however where the debtor
chooses this means of payment, he bears the risk of loss.

NATURAL OBLIGATIONS
Definition
• -based on equity and natural law
• -not enforceable by means of court action
• -arises
AFTER VOLUNTARY FULFILLMENT by the obligor
• -RIGHT OF RETENTION what has been delivered or paid- a matter of defense

CONCEPT OF NATURAL OBLIGATIONS

- the duty not to recover what has voluntarily been paid although payment was no
longer required

• Art. 1423. Obligations are civil or natural. Civil obligations give a right of action to
compel their performance. Natural obligations, not being based on positive law but on
equity and natural law, do not grant a right of action to enforce their performance, but
after voluntary fulfillment by the obligor, they authorize the retention of what has been
delivered or rendered by reason thereof. Some natural obligations are set forth in the
following articles.
CIVIL OBLIGATION
- based on positive law
- enforceable by court action
- arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts

NATURAL OBLIGATION
-based on equity and natural law
-not enforceable by court action
EXAMPLES OF NATURAL OBLIGATIONS:
-ARTICLES 1424 to 1430
-provisions are not EXCLUSIVE as long as there is semblance of a right of retention
borne out by equity or natural law

PERFORMANCE AFTER CIVIL OBLIGATION HAS PRESCRIBED

• Article 1424. When a right to sue upon a civil obligation has lapsed by extinctive
prescription, the obligor who voluntarily performs the contract cannot recover what he
has delivered or the value of the service he has rendered.
Ex:
A and B entered into an oral contract. They have agreed that A will pay B for P 1, 000
as payment for the book that B sold.
In the law of prescription, an oral contract must be enforced in 6 years. For written
contracts, it must be commenced within 10 years, otherwise prescription will bar the
action. After 6 years B, did not enforce the contract; hence, his action has prescribed.
Despite this, A still paid B. He cannot be allowed to recover what he has paid under Art.
1424, NCC.
• Art. 1425. When without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, a third
person pays a debt which the obligor is not legally bound to pay because the action
thereon has prescribed, but the debtor later voluntarily reimburses the third person, the
obligor cannot recover what he has paid.
In reference to the previous example: C, a third person, paid B without the knowledge
or against the will of A. A later reimbursed C P 1, 000 although in the enforcement of
his (A) debt, prescription had set in. A can no longer recover what he has
paid to C.

• Art. 1426. When a minor between eighteen and twenty-one years of age
who has entered into a contract without the consent of the parent or guardian, after
the annulment of the contract voluntarily returns the whole thing or price received,
notwithstanding the fact the he has not been benefited thereby, there is no right to
demand the thing or price thus returned.
Reference: Article 1399- A minor must restitute what he has received when the contract
is annulled up to the extent that he has benefited.
Ex:
-A, a minor, entered into a contract without knowledge of his parents
-In the contract he received a car but was later destroyed by an unforeseen calamity
(not benefited).
-When the contract was annulled, A voluntarily returned the value of the car. He cannot
be allowed to recover the return of the such price returned.

• Art. 1427. When a minor between eighteen and twenty-one years of age, who has
entered into a contract without the consent of the parent or guardian, voluntarily pays a
sum of money or delivers a fungible thing in fulfillment of the obligation, there shall be
no right to recover the same from the obligee who has spent or consumed it in good
faith.
Ex: not knowing that the transacting party is a minor and consumed the object of the
contract in good faith

• Art. 1428. When, after an action to enforce a civil obligation has failed the defendant
voluntarily performs the obligation, he cannot demand the return of what he has
delivered or the payment of the value of the service he has rendered.
Ex: -A owes B P 10, 000.
-B sues A in court but lost the litigation. The court decision became final, hence A won.
-A later paid B voluntarily.
-A cannot be allowed to recover.

• Art. 1429. When a testate or intestate heir voluntarily pays a debt of the decedent
exceeding the value of the property which he received by will or by the law of intestacy
from the estate of the deceased, the payment is valid and cannot be rescinded by the
payer.
Reference: Heirs are not personally liable beyond the value of their inheritance (Art.
1311, NCC)
Ex:
-A dies leaving an estate of P 10, 000 and debts amounting to P 15, 000.
-His heir is not expected to make up for the difference, but if he does knowingly, he
cannot recover the difference.
-paying up beyond one’s inheritance is only a moral duty

• Art. 1430. When a will is declared void because it has not been executed in
accordance with the formalities required by law, but one of the intestate heirs, after the
settlement of the debts of the deceased, pays a legacy in compliance with a clause in
the defective will, the payment is effective and irrevocable.

Basis of the Article

-if the will is void, the legacy is void; the deceases is deemed to have died without a will

TITLE XVII-EXTRA CONTRACTUAL

OBLIGATIONS
• QUASI-CONTRACTS (Arts. 2142 to 2175 NCC)
• QUASI-DELICTS (Arts. 2176 t 2194 NCC)

QUASI-CONTRACTS
• Art. 2142. Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical
relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or
benefited at the expense of another. (n)
-Art. 2142 defines Quasi-Contracts
• Art. 2143. The provisions for quasi-contracts in this Chapter do not exclude other
quasi-contracts which may come within the purview of the preceding article. (n)
-Confirmatory of Article 2142 that quasi-contracts may exist so long as it follows the
principle in a situation that “no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the
expense of another”.

QUASI-CONTRACTS
1) NOMINATE (NEGOTIORUM GESTIO AND SOLUTIO INDEBITI)
2) INNOMINATE (ARTS. 2164 TO 2175 OF THE NCC)

NEGOTIORUM GESTIO
• Art. 2144. Whoever voluntarily takes charge of the agency or management of the
business or property of another, without any power from the latter, is obliged to
continue the same until the termination of the affair and its incidents,
or to require the person concerned to substitute him, if the owner is in a position to do
so. This juridical relation does not arise in either of these instances:
(1) When the property or business is not neglected or abandoned;
(2) If in fact the manager has been tacitly authorized by the owner.

REQUISITES
1) GESTOR MUST VOLUNTARILY ASSUME THE AGENCY OR MANAGEMENT OF THE
BUSINESS OR PROPERTY OF ANOTHER
2) THE BUSINESS OR PROPERTY MUST BE EITHER NEGLECTED OR ABANDONED
3) THE AGENCY OR MANAGEMENT MUST NOT BE AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER
EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY
4) THE ASSUMPTION OF THE AGENCY OR MANAGEMENT MUST BE MADE IN GOOD
FAITH
LIABILITY FOR FORTUITOUS EVENT
• Art. 2147. The officious manager shall be liable for any fortuitous event:
(1) If he undertakes risky operations which the owner was not accustomed to embark
upon;
(2) If he has preferred his own interest to that of the owner;
(3) If he fails to return the property or business after demand by the owner;
(4) If he assumed the management in bad faith. (1891a)

• Art. 2148. Except when the management was assumed to save property or business
from imminent danger, the officious manager shall be liable for fortuitous events:
(1) If he is manifestly unfit to carry on the management;
(2) If by his intervention he prevented a more competent person from taking up the
management. (n)

RATIFICATION OF THE OWNER

• Art. 2149. The ratification of the management by the owner of the business
produces the effects of an express agency, even if the business may not have been
successful. (1892a)
• Art. 2150. Although the officious management may not have been expressly ratified,
the owner of the property or business who enjoys the advantages of the same shall be
liable for obligations incurred in his interest, and shall reimburse the officious manager
for the necessary and useful expenses and for the damages which the latter may have
suffered in the performance of his duties.
The same obligation shall be incumbent upon him when the management had for its
purpose the prevention of an imminent and manifest loss, although no benefit may
have been derived. (1893)
• Art. 2151. Even though the owner did not derive any benefit and there has
been no imminent and manifest danger to the property or business, the owner is
liable as under the first paragraph of the preceding article, provided:
(1) The officious manager has acted in good faith, and
(2) The property or business is intact, ready to be returned to the owner. (n)
• Art. 2152. The officious manager is personally liable for contracts which he has
entered into with third persons, even though he acted in the name of the
owner, and there shall be no right of action between the owner and third persons.
These provisions shall not apply:
(1) If the owner has expressly or tacitly ratified the management, or
(2) When the contract refers to things pertaining to the owner of the business. (n)
• Art. 2153. The management is extinguished:
(1) When the owner repudiates it or puts an end thereto;
(2) When the officious manager withdraws from the management, subject to the
provisions of Article 2144;
(3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the owner or the officious
manager. (n)

EXAMPLE:
In fear of reprisals from lawless elements besieging his barangay, X abandoned his
fishpond, fled to Manila, and left for Europe. Seeing that the fish in the fishpond were
ready for harvest, Y, who is in the business of managing fishponds on commission
basis, took possession of the property, harvested the fish and sold the entire harvest to
Z.
Thereafter, Y borrowed money from W and used the money to buy new supplies of fish
fry and to prepare the fishpond for the next crop.
Q1) What is the juridical relation between X and Y during X’s absence?
- Juridical relation is negotiorum gestio.
- Y is the gestor or officious manager
- X is the owner
Q2) Upon the return of X to the barangay, what are the obligations of Y to X as regards
the contract with Z?
- Y must render accounting of his operations and deliver to X the price he
received for the sale of the harvested fish.
Q3) Upon X’s return, what are the obligations of X as regards Y’s contract with W?
- X must pay the loan obtained by Y from W because X must answer for obligations
contracted with third persons in the interest of the owner.

Solutio Indebiti
• Art. 2154. If something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was
unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises. (1895)

REQUISITES
1) THERE MUST BE A PAYMENT OR DELIVERY MADE ONE PERSON TO
ANOTHER
2) THE PERSON WHO MADE THE PAYMENT OR DELIVERY WAS UNDER NO
OBLIGATION TO DO SO
3) THE PAYMENT OR DELIVERY WAS MADE BY REASON OF A MISTAKE
• Art. 2155. Payment by reason of a mistake in the construction or application of a
doubtful or difficult question of law may come within the scope of the preceding article.
(n)
• Art. 2156. If the payer was in doubt whether the debt was due, he may recover if he
proves that it was not due. (n)
• Art. 2157. The responsibility of two or more payees, when there has been payment
of what is not due, is solidary. (n)
• Art. 2158. When the property delivered or money paid belongs to a third person,
the payee shall comply with the provisions of article 1984. (n)
• Art. 2159. Whoever in bad faith accepts an undue payment, shall pay legal interest if
a sum of money is involved, or shall be liable for fruits received or which should have
been received if the thing produces fruits. He shall furthermore be answerable for any
loss or impairment of the thing from any cause, and for damages to the person who
delivered the thing, until it is recovered. (1896a)
• Art. 2160. He who in good faith accepts an undue payment of a thing certain and
determinate shall only be responsible for the impairment or loss of the same or its
accessories and accessions insofar as he has thereby been benefited. If he has
alienated it, he shall return the price or assign the action to collect the sum. (1897)
• Art. 2162. He shall be exempt from the obligation to restore who, believing in
good faith that the payment was being made of a legitimate and subsisting
claim, destroyed the document, or allowed the action to prescribe, or gave up the
pledges, or cancelled the guaranties for his right. He who paid unduly may proceed only
against the true debtor or the guarantors with regard to whom the action is still
effective. (1899)
• Art. 2163. It is presumed that there was a mistake in the payment if something
which had never been due or had already been paid was delivered; but he from whom
the return is claimed may prove that the delivery was made out of liberality or for any
other just cause. (1901)
Other Quasi-Contracts
Art. 2164. When, without the knowledge of the person obliged to give support, it
is given by a stranger, the latter shall have a right to claim the same from the former,
unless it appears that he gave it out of piety and without intention of being repaid.
(1894a)
• Art. 2165. When funeral expenses are borne by a third person, without the
knowledge of those relatives who were obliged to give support to the deceased, said
relatives shall reimburse the third person, should the latter claim reimbursement.
(1894a)
• Art. 2166. When the person obliged to support an orphan, or an insane or other
indigent person unjustly refuses to give support to the latter, any third person
may furnish support to the needy individual, with right of reimbursement from the
person obliged to give support.
The provisions of this article apply when the father or mother of a child under eighteen
years of age unjustly refuses to support him.
• Art. 2167. When through an accident or other cause a person is injured or becomes
seriously ill, and he is treated or helped while he is not in a condition to give consent to
a contract, he shall be liable to pay for the services of the physician or other person
aiding him, unless the service has been rendered out of pure generosity.
• Art. 2168. When during a fire, flood, storm, or other calamity, property is saved from
destruction by another person without the knowledge of the owner, the latter is bound
to pay the former just compensation.
• Art. 2169. When the government, upon the failure of any person to comply with
health or safety regulations concerning property, undertakes to do the necessary work,
even over his objection, he shall be liable to pay the expenses.
• Art. 2170. When by accident or other fortuitous event, movables separately
pertaining to two or more persons are commingled or confused, the rules on co-
ownership shall be applicable.
• Art. 2171. The rights and obligations of the finder of lost personal property shall
be governed by Articles 719 and 720.
• Art. 2172. The right of every possessor in good faith to reimbursement for necessary
and useful expenses is governed by Article 546.
• Art. 2173. When a third person, without the knowledge of the debtor, pays the debt,
the rights of the former are governed by Articles 1236 and 1237.
• Art. 2174. When in a small community a nationality of the inhabitants of age decide
upon a measure for protection against lawlessness, fire, flood, storm or other calamity,
anyone who objects to the plan and refuses to contribute to the expenses but is
benefited by the project as executed shall be liable to pay his share of said expenses.
• Art. 2175. Any person who is constrained to pay the taxes of another shall be
entitled to reimbursement from the latter.

CHAPTER 2 = QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is
no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
• Definition
-act or omission by a tortfeasor causing damage to another giving rise to an obligation
to pay for the damage due to fault or negligence, in the absence of contractual relation
between the parties
ELEMENTS:
1) act or omission
2) fault or negligence
3) damage caused
4) direct relation of cause and effect between the act or omission and the damage
5) no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties
EXAMPLE:
De Leon’s Book, page 30:
• Kids playing softball near the house of Y, their neighbor. X, one of the kids, broke the
glass window of the house because they had been playing very near to the window.
• Negligence- playing very near to the window, absence of precaution or foresight
• Obligation to pay damage- quasi-delict as source of obligation

Distinguished from Crimes or Delicts as source of obligation:

1) Crime has criminal intent or malicious intent, or criminal negligence while quasi-delict
has only negligence
2) Punishment is the purpose of crimes while indemnity is the purpose of quasi-delict
3) Crimes affect public interest while quasi-delict concerns on private interest
4) In crime, criminal and civil liabilities are involved while in quasi-delict there is only
civil liability
5) No compromise for criminal liability but quasi-delict can be compromised
6) Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the degree of proof for crimes while in quasi-delict
only preponderance of evidence is required.
• Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.
• Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's
lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded.
• Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's
own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
• The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who
are under their authority and live in their company.
• The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible
for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the
latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
• Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry.
• The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not
when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly
pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
• Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for
damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in
their custody.
• The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.
• Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees
may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
• Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or
guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an
action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed.
• Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same
is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost.
This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure
or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.
• Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if
the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he
had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice
within the next preceding two months.
• Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving
a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any
traffic regulation.
• Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and
similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and the
consumers.
• Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of
the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons
or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof
is indispensable in his occupation or business.
• Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the
death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of
roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or
supervision.
• Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages
resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary
repairs.
• Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence,
and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and
adequate place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force
majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions suitable to the place.

• Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is
responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same.

• Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is
solidary.