NAME: DATE: November 8, 2022 1. Dation in payment - According to 8 Manresa 314, as cited in De Leon and De Leon (2021), Dation in payment—otherwise known as dacion en pago—is the transfer of ownership of a thing/item/property to a creditor as an act constituting equivalence to payment. 2. Application of payment - Application of payment is the act of assigning/designating a payment made to a certain debt relevant to the same creditor. In this case, the application of payment happens when there are multiple debts to only one creditor, and the debtor designated such payment to one of the multiple debts (De Leon and De Leon, 2021). 3. Payment by cession - De Leon and De Leon (2021) defined payment by cession as a form of payment where the debtor commits/assigns his/her properties for the benefit of paying the creditors. As this is a form of payment relatively different from that of the original object to be rendered (e.g., legal tender), the following requisites should be present so that such an option may be available. These are: o Two (2) or more creditors, o partial insolvency of the debtor, o the debtor must assign/commit all his properties, and o the creditors must accept cession as the form of payment 4. Consignation - Consignation is the act of depositing the thing or amount due with the proper court in the event that the creditor refuses (by choice or incidental to the situation) to receive it. Consignation is always judicial that only exists after the fact that a tender of payment already exists, which is extrajudicial (De Leon and De Leon, 2021). 5. Legal impossibility - Legal impossibility is an obligation that can no longer be performed due to legal restrictions by any provisions provided by the law. Although it may seem that it can be performed physically, such a performance would constitute violation of the relevant law/legal provision (De Leon and De Leon, 2021). Problems (5 points each). Answer the questions first by YES or NO, then explain or state briefly the rule or reason for your answers. 1. Gojo owes Megumi Php10,000 with Yuuji as guarantor. On the due date of the obligation, Nobara, a third person, offered to pay Gojo’s obligation. Can Megumi legally refuse to accept the payment? Yes. As it is provided in Article 1236 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, no creditor shall be legally required to accept payments from any third person whose interest in the contract is unknown due to a lack of merit or provision in the same contract. In this case, Nobara’s interest in the contract is unknown as it either lacks the provision or merit to have such interest and therefore, Megumi can legally refuse to accept the payment. 2. Megumi issued a promissory note for Php10,000 in favor of Gojo. Gojo lost the note but Yuuji found it. Now Yuuji is demanding payment from Megumi. Megumi did not know that the note was lost by Gojo so he paid Yuuji. Is Megumi justified in doing so? No. As the issuance of the promissory note is appropriately in favor of Gojo, Article 1242 of the Civil Code of the Philippines expressly provides that a person who holds the instrument of credit cannot be assumed to be the person to receive such payment. In cases of the Negotiable Instruments Law, if it was expressly provided that the holder shall be the one to receive payment, Megumi shall be justified as she did pay in good faith (De Leon and De Leon, 2021). However, in this case, Megumi’s action is not justified as no provision ensued. 3. Gojo owes Megumi Php10,000. Without Megumi’s knowledge, Gojo in good faith, paid to Yuuji his obligation to Megumi. Is Gojo required by law to prove that the payment was received by Megumi in order to be released from liability? Yes. Although the payment was in good faith, there are no presence exemptions stated in Article 1241 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Therefore, Gojo has to prove his payment to Yuuji in order to be absolved from his credit to Megumi. 4. Gojo obliged himself to deliver to Yuuji his golden retriever named Killer, who just won the grand prize at the recently concluded dog show, on November 27, 2021. Killer died on November 17, 2021. Yuuji has no proof that Gojo was negligent. Is Gojo liable to Yuuji? Yes. His liability is supported by Article 1265 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, as it provides that the liability of the debtor is assumed to be his if the loss of the thing occurred during the period when it is in his possession. In this case, Killer, the dog, is in the possession of Gojo, and unless he can provide such evidence that the dog died without his fault, liability is assumed. Reference: De Leon, H., De Leon H., JR. (2021) The Law on Obligations and Contracts. Rex Bookstore Inc. Chapter 4; pp. 201; 210; 215; 217; and 230.
