Oblicon Digests

NILO B. DIONGZON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF TE PILIPPINES, respondents.

criminal liability which he might have had under the former obligation was thereby avoided.

Fa!ts" •

•

Nilo was charged for violation of BP 22 by Filipro, now Nestle. Accord According ing to the complai complainant nants, s, due to abnorma abnormally lly high high orders, the company decided to check the veracity of three customers. customers. Nilo presented presented to the company company representat representatives ives three checks purportedly for payment of the goods ordered by the clients. clients. hen hen presen presented ted for payment, payment, the checks checks bounced. bounced. !he "rst two checks were dishonoured because because of  signi"cant signi"cant di#erences di#erences with the signature on "le with the bank, while the third check was dishonoured for insu$ciency of funds. hen the company representativ representative e confronted the clients, the latter denied receiving the goods nor issuing the checks. Nilo then admitted issuing the checks from his bank account. account. According According to him, he resorted resorted to credit riding in order to meet the sales targets. %uring trial, Nilo "rst denied that the signatures on the checks were his, then admitted that the third check was issued as replacement for the "rst two which bounced. !he &!' &!' convicted him, a$rmed by the 'ourt of Appeals. Appeals. !he 'A however however did not impose on him subsidiary imprisonment because according to the 'A, BP 22 is a special law which provides no subsidiary imprisonment. (n his appeal appeal to the )upreme )upreme 'ourt, 'ourt, Nilo interpose interposed d the defense of novation, a completely di#erent defense from the one he used in the lower lower courts. According to him, because of the incompatibility between the last check and the partial payment and written undertaking he e*ecuted, there was a novatio novation n of his origin original al obliga obligatio tion n so that that any incipi incipient ent

Iss#se" +N there was novation

R#$in%" •

•

•

 !he )upreme 'ourt held that there was no novation in this case because a change in the mode of paying the obligation was not a change in any of the obects or principal conditions of the contract. Novation cannot be presumed but must be e*pressly intended by the parties. -(t -(t is wells wellsettl ettled ed that that the follow following ing re/uis re/uisites ites must be presen presentt for novati novation on to take take place0 place0 13 a previo previous us valid valid obliga obligatio tion4 n4 123 agreement agreement of all the parties parties to the new contrac contract4 t4 153 e*ting e*tinguis uishmen hmentt of the old contrac contract4 t4 and 163 validity of the new one.  !hese re/uisites, particularly the third, were not proven in this this case. case. As the 'ourt of Appeal Appeals s held, held, the transacti transaction on became a personal undertaking undertaking of the petitioner when he received the goods for delivery but made no delivery thereof  either to the credited dealer or to the credit rider. Petitioner had an e*isting obligation obligation to pay she value of the goods for whic which h the the chec check k was was issu issued. ed. !his !his obli obliga gati tion on was was not not e*ting e*tinguis uished hed when when the check check was dishonor dishonored ed and a new agreement was reached by the two parties to pay in cash its value. !he change in the mode of paying the obligation obligation was

•

not a change in any of the obects or principal conditions of  the contract. (f there was a n ovation, petitioner7s liability under B.P. B.P. Blg. 22 was not thereby e*tinguished e*tinguished because because the gravamen of the o#ense is the issuance of worthless checks. Novation is not a mode of e*tinguishing criminal liability.

Sandi!o vs. Pi%#in%

•

•

Fa!ts"  !he appellate court7s udgment obliges the respondent to do two things0 13 to recogni8e the easement, and 123 to pay the petitioners the sums of P9,::: actual and P9:: e*emplary damages and P9:: attorney7s fees, or a total of P;,:::. !he full satisfaction of the said  udgment re/uires speci"c performance and payment of a sum of  money by the respondent. !he parties entered into an agreement reducing reducing the payment to P6:::, and was subse/uently subse/uently paid by respondent.

Iss#e" as there a novation<

(n the case at hand, we fail to see what new or modi"ed obligation arose out of the payment by the respondent of the reduce reduced d amount amount of P6,:: P6,::: : and substi substitute tute the monetar monetary y liability for P;,::: of the said respondent under the appellate cour court7 t7s s udgm udgmen ent. t. Addi Additi tion onal ally ly,, to sust sustai ain n nova novati tion on necessitates necessitates that the same be so declared in une/uivocal une/uivocal terms > clearly and unmistakabl unmistakably y shown by the e*press e*press agreement of the parties or by acts of e/uivalent import > or that that there there is comple complete te and substa substantia ntiall incompa incompatib tibili ility ty between the two obligations.

PEOPLE&S BAN' AND TRUST CO(PAN), p$ainti*+appe$$ee, vs. S)EL&S INCORPORATED, INCORPORATED, ANTONIO ANTONIO ). S))AP S))AP and ANGEL )  S))AP, de -endants+appe$$ant s. Fa!ts" •

e$d"

&educ &eductio tion n of the amount amount of money money to be paid does not amount to novation. !he payment by the respondent of the lesser amount of P6,:::, accepted by the petitioners without any protest or obection and acknowledged by them as =in full full satis satisfa facti ction on of the the mone money y udg udgme ment nt=, =, comp comple letel tely y e*tinguished the udgment debt and released the respondent from his pecuniary liability.

=!his =!his is an action action for forecl foreclosu osure re of chatte chattell mortga mortgage ge e*ecuted in favor of the plainti# by the defendant )yvel7s (ncorporated on its stocks of goods, personal properties and other other materia materials ls owned by it and located located at its stores stores or warehouses.

•

•

•

•

•

 !he chattel mortgage was in connection with a credit commercial line in the amount of P?::,:::.:: granted to the said defendant corporation. %efendants %efendants e*ecuted an undertaking undertaking in favor of the plainti#  whereb whereby y they they both both agreed agreed to guarant guarantee ee absolu absolutel tely y and unconditional unconditionally ly and without without the bene"t of e*cussion the full and prompt payment of any indebtedness indebtedness to be incurred on account of the said credit line. (n view of the failure of the defendant corporation to make payment in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon in the 'ommer 'ommercia ciall 'redi 'reditt Agreem Agreement ent the plaint plainti#  i#  started to foreclose e*traudicially the chattel mortgage. @r. @r. )yyap )yyap re/ues re/uested ted that that the plainti plainti# # dismis dismiss s this this case case because because he did not want want to have the goodwill goodwill of )yvel7s )yvel7s (ncorporated impaired, and o#ered to e*ecute a real estate mortgage on his real property. property. %efendants did not agree with plainti#7s motion to dismiss which included the dismissal dismissal of their counterclaim counterclaim and "led instead their own motion to dismiss on the ground that by the e*ecution of said real estate mortgage, the obligation secured by the chattel mortgage subect of this case was novated, and therefore, appellee7s cause of action thereon was e*tinguished.

Iss#e" as there novation<

R#$in%"

•

•

(n the case case at bar, bar, there there is nothin nothing g in the the &eal &eal sta state te @ortgag @ortgage e which which suppor supports ts appell appellant ants7 s7 submis submissio sion. n. !he contract on its face does not show the e*istence of an e*plicit novation nor incompatibility on every point between the =old and the =new= agreements agreements as the second contract evidently indicat indicates es that the same same was e*ecuted e*ecuted as new additiona additionall security to the chattel mortgage previously entered into by the parties. @oreover, @oreover, records show that in the real estate mortgage, mortgage, appellants agreed that the chattel mortgage =shall remain in full full force force and shall not be impair impaired ed by this 1real 1real estate3 estate3 mortgage.=

ADORACION ADORACION E. CRUZ, TEL(A DEBBIE E. CRUZ and GERR) E CRUZ, CRUZ, petition petitioners, ers, vs. COURT COURT OF APPEALS APPEALS and SPOUSES SPOUSES ELISEO and IRGINIA (ALOLOS, respondents. Fa!ts" %el"n (. 'ru8 and Adoracion 'ru8 were spouses and their children were !helma, Nerissa, Arnel and erry 'ru8. Cpon the death of  %el"n %el"n (. 'ru8, 'ru8, his survivin surviving g spouse spouse and childr children en e*ecu e*ecuted ted a notari8ed deed of partial partition 1%PP3 by virtue of which each one of them was given a share of several parcels of land all situated in  !aytay,  !aytay, &i8al. A day after the e*ecution of the %PP, the same parties e*ecut e*ecuted ed a @emoran @emorandum dum of Agreeme Agreement nt 1@+A3 1@+A3 wherei wherein n they covenanted and agreed among themselves that they shall alike and receive e/ual shares from the proceeds of the sale of any of the lot or lots allotted allotted to and adudicated adudicated in their individual individual names by

virtue of the %PP. %PP. !he %PP was subse/uently subse/uently registered registered and title were issued in their names. !he annotation annotation pertaining to the @+A was carried in each of the title. !he spouses Nerissa 'ru8!amayo and Nelson !amayo !amayo were sued by the spouses liseo and Dirginia Dirginia @alolos for a sum of money in the 'ourt of First (nstance of &i8al 1Eue8on 'ity3. !he !amayo spouses, after trial, were condemned by the trial court to pay a sum of money to the @alolos spouses. After the "nality of the decision, a writ of e*ecution was issued. nforcing said writ, the sheri# of the court levied upon the land in /uestion and thereafte thereafterr sold sold the propertie properties s in an e*ecu e*ecutio tion n sale sale to the highes highestt bidders bidders,, the @alolo @alolos s spouse spouses. s. Accord According ingly, ly, the sheri#  sheri#  e*ecu e*ecuted ted a certi" certi"cat cate e of sale. sale. Neriss Nerissa a 'ru8 'ru8! !amayo amayo failed failed to e*ercise her right of redemption within the statutory period and so the "nal deed of sale was e*ecuted by the sheri# conveying the lands to the @alolos spouses. !he @alolos couple asked the Nerissa 'ru8!amayo to give them the owners duplicate copy of the seven 13 titles of the lands in /uestion but she refused. !he couple moved the court to compel her to surrender said titles to the &egister of  %eeds %eeds of &i8al &i8al for cancel cancellat lation ion.. !he motion motion was granted, granted, but Nerissa was adamant. )he did not comply with the order so the @alolos @alolos couple asked the court to declare declare said titles null and void. At this point, petitioners entered the picture by "ling in said court a motion for leave to intervene and oppose the @aloloses7 motion.  !hey alleged that they are coowners of the lands in /uestion. !he lower court rendered a decision for private respondents from which the defendants appealed appealed to the 'ourt of Appeals. Appeals. !he appellate appellate court ruled in favor of herein private respondents, holding that the %PP was not materi materiall ally y and substantiall substantially y incompatible incompatible with the @+A. @+A. !he %PP conferred conferred absolute ownership of the parcels parcels of land in issue on Nerissa 'ru8!amayo, while the @+A merely created an

obligation on her part to share with the petitioners the proceeds of  the sale of the said properties. Gence, the present petition.

Iss#e" +N %PP was cancelled or novated upon the e*ecution of @+A as what is the contention of the petitioners<

R#$in%"  !he )upreme 'ourt found no reversible error committed by the 'ourt of Appeals. !he 'ourt ruled that the @+A does not novate, much less cancel, the earlier %PP. !he @+A falls short of producing a novation, because it does not e*press a clear intent to dissolve the old obligation as a consideration for the emergence of a new one. Petitioners also failed to show that the %PP and the @+A are materially and substantially incompatible with each other. !he %PP granted title to the lots in /uestion to the coowner to whom they were assigned, and the @+A created an obligation on the part of  such coowner to share with the others the proceeds proceeds of the sale of  such parcels. !here is no incompatibility between the two contracts.  !he @+A cannot be then construed as a repudiation of the earlier %PP.

LEONID LEONIDA A C. UINT UINTO, O, petit petition ioner er, PILIPPINES, respondent .

Fa!ts"

vs. vs.

PEOP PEOPLE LE

OF

TE TE

Petitioner Petitioner Euinto took some ewelries ewelries from private private complainant complainant Amelia 'ariaga for selling selling purposes. After ; months, months, however, however, Euinto failed to return the ewelries or pay the value thereof. Gence, a case of estafa was "led against Euinto as a result of which she was convicted, a$rmed by the 'ourt of Appeals. Euinto admitted that she took some ewelries from 'ariaga but she sold the same to @rs. 'amacho and @rs. &amos. Cnfortunately Cnfortunately however, both were unable to pay the whole whole amount and promised promised to pay the balance in inst instal allm lment ent to 'ari 'ariaga aga.. Petiti etition oner er thus thus alle allege ged d that that the the agreement between her and 'ariaga was e#ectively novated when the latter consented to receive payment on installments directly from @rs. 'amacho and @rs. &amos.

Iss#e" +N there was novation hence e*tinguishing petitionerHs liability to complainant<

R#$in%"  !he changes alluded to by petitioner consists only in the manner of  payment. !here was really no substitution of debtors since 'ariaga merely accepted the payment but did not give her consent to enter into a new contract. contract. !hus, 'ariaga 'ariaga7s 7s accepta acceptance nce of &amos &amos and 'amacho7s payment on installment basis cannot be construed as a case of either e*promision or delegacion su$cient to ustify the attendance of e*tinctive novation. Gence, this does not necessarily e*tinguish the liability of the "rst debtor.

Further the defense of novation cannot avoid the incipient criminal liability for stafa to which Euinto was found guilty of. (t is a public o#ense which must be prosecuted and punished by the )tate on its own.