OBLIGATIONSNature and Effect of Obligations

ART. 1156 AN OBLIGATION IS A JURIDICAL NECESSITY TO GIVE, TO DO OR NOT TO DO. an obligation is a legal bond whereby constraint is laid upon a person or group of persons to act or forbear on behalf of another person or group of persons. obligation arises from the concurrence of:

a) the vinculum juris or juridical tie; b) the object which is the prestation; c) subject-persons (Ang Yu Asuncion v. CA)

ART. 1157 - OBLIGATIONS ARISE FROM: 1)LAW; 2)CONTRACTS; 3)QUASI-CONTRACTS; 4)ACTS OR OMISSIONS PUNISHED BY LAW; 5)QUASI-DELICTS.

obligations are civil or natural. Civil obligations give a right of action to compel performance. Natural obligations, not being based on positive law but on equity and natural law, do not grant a right of action to enforce performance, but after their voluntary fulfillment by the obligor, they authorize the retention of what has been delivered or rendered by reason thereof.

ART. 1158 - OBLIGATIONS DERIVED FROM LAW ARE NOT PRESUMED. ONLY THOSE EXPRESSLY DETERMINED IN THIS CODE OR IN SPECIAL LAWS ARE DEMANDABLE, AND SHALL BE REGULATED BY THE PRECEPTS OF THE LAW WHICH ESTABLISHES THEM; AND AS TO WHAT HAS NOT BEEN FORSEEN, BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BOOK.among sources of obligation, the law is the most important one. It does not depend upon the will of the parties. It is imposed by the state and is generally imbued with some public policy considerations.

It cannot be presumed.Hence, the payment of taxes must be specifically directed by our tax statutes. Also, parents and children are obliged to support each other as mandated by the provisions of the Family Code.

ART. 1159 - OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM CONTRACTS HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW BETWEEN THE CONTRACTING PARTIES AND SHOULD BE COMPLIED WITH IN GOOD FAITH.

a contract is a meeting of minds between 2 or more persons whereby a person (or a group of persons) binds himself, with respect to the other (or others) to give something or to render some service.

a contract may likewise involve mutual and reciprocal obligations and duties between and among the parties.

Whatever stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions are included in a contract, as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy or public order, such contract is the law between the parties (Gaw v. IAC)Contracts which are the private laws of the contracting parties should be fulfilled according to the literal sense of their stipulations, if their terms are clear and leave no room for doubt as to their intention of the contracting parties, for contracts are obligatory, no matter what form they may be, whenever essential requirements for their validity are present (PAGICO v. Mutuc)

ART. 1160 - OBLIGATIONS DERIVED FROM QUASI-CONTRACTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 1 TITLE XVII OF THIS BOOK.

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 the other. A good example of an obligation arising from a quasi-contract is the obligation to return what has been obtained by mistake (solutio indebiti)

ART. 1161 - CIVIL OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM CRIMINAL OFFENSES SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE PENAL LAWS, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ART 2177, AND OF THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 2, PRELIMINARY TITLE, ON HUMAN RELATIONS, AND OF TITLE XVIII OF THIS BOOK, REGULATING DAMAGES.Scope of Civil Liability:

1) Restitution;2) Reparation for the damage caused; and

3) Indemnification for consequential damages.

ART. 1162 - OBLIGATIONS DERIVED FROM QUASI-DELICTS SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 2, TITLE XVII OF THIS BOOK AND BY SPECIAL LAWS. quasi-delict: whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict.

ART. 1163 - EVERY PERSON OBLIGED TO GIVE SOMETHING IS ALSO OBLIGED TO TAKE CARE OF IT WITH THE PROPER DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY, UNLESS THE LAW OR THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES REQUIRES ANOTHER STANDARD OF CARE.

this article involves the prestation to give. The word something connotes a determinate object which is definite, known, and has already been distinctly decided and particularly specified as the matter to be given from among the same things belonging to the same kind.

diligence of a good father of a family because it is a commonly-accepted notion that a father will always do everything to take care of his concerns.If the law does not state the diligence which is supposed to be observed in the performance of an obligation, that which is expected of a good father of a family is required.In case of a contrary stipulation of the parties, such stipulation is should not be one contemplating a relinquishment or waiver of the most ordinary diligence.An example where the law requires another standard of care is that which involves common carriers (persons or firms engaged in the business of carrying, transporting passengers or goods of both, by land, water, air for

compensation, offering their service to the public)- they are bound to observe extraordinary diligence

ART. 1164 - THE CREDITOR HAS THE RIGHTS TO THE FRUITS OF THE THING FROM THE TIME THE OBLIGATION TO DELIVER IT ARISES. HOWEVER, HE SHALL ACQUIRE NO REAL RIGHT OIVER IT UNTIL THE SAME HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO HIM.

after the right to deliver the object of the prestation has arisen in favor of the creditor but prior to the delivery of the same, there is no real right enforceable or binding against the whole over the object and its fruits in favor of the person to whom the same should be given. The acquisition of a real right means that such right can be enforceable against the whole world and will prejudice anybody claiming the same object of the prestation.The real right only accrues when the thing or object of the prestation is delivered to the creditor.He only has a personal right over the same if it is enforceable only against the debtor who is under an

obligation to give. This means that the personal right of the creditor can be defeated by a third party in good faith who has innocently acquired the property prior to the scheduled delivery regardless of whether or not such third party acquired the property after the right to the delivery of the thing has accrued in favor of the creditor. In this case, however, the aggrieved creditor can go against the debtor for damages as the debtor should have known that the fruits should have been delivered to the creditor alone.

ART. 1165 - WHEN WHAT IS TO BE DELIVERED IS A DETERMINATE THING, THE CREDITOR, IN ADDITION TO THE RIGHT GRANTED HIM BY ART 1170, MAY COMPEL THE DEBTOR TO MAKE DELIVERY.IF THE THING IS INDETERMINATE OR GENERIC, HE MAY ASK THAT THE OBLIGATION BE COMPLIED WITH AT THE EXPENSE OF THE DEBTOR.IF THE OBLIGOR DELAYS, OR HAS PROMISED TO

DELIVER THE SAME THING TO TWO OR MORE PERSONS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE SAME INTEREST, HE SHALL BE REPSONSIBLE FOR FORTUITOUS EVENT UNTIL HE HAS EFFECTED DELIVERY.

In the event that there is non-delivery of a generic thing, the creditor may have it accomplished or delivered in any reasonable and legal way charging all expenses in connection with such fulfillment to the debtor. The same creditor can ask a third party to deliver the same thing of the same kind with all the expense charged to the debtor.

In case of non-delivery of a determinable thing, the remedy is to file an action to compel the debtor to make the delivery. This action is called specific performance.If the debtor is guilty of fraud, negligence, delay or contravention in the performance of the obligation, the creditor can likewise seek damages against the debtor.A fortuitous event is an event which could not be foreseen, or which though foreseen, were inevitable.The last paragraph of art 1165 however provides that a fortuitous event will not excuse the obligor from his obligation in 2 cases namely: 1) if the obligor delays; and 2) if he has promised to deliver the same thing to 2 or

more persons who do not have the same interest. In both cases, the obligor will be liable for damages or will be bound to replace the lost object of the prestation in cases when the obligee agrees to the replacement.

ART. 1166 - THE OBLIGATION TO GIVE A DETERMINATE THING INCLUDES THAT OF DELIVERING ALL ITS ACCESSIONS AND ACCESSORIES, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED.Accessions are the fruits of a thing or additions to or

improvements upon a thing the principal (ex. House or trees on a land; rents of a building; air-conditioner in a car; profits or dividends accruing from shares of stocks)Accessories are things joined to or included with the principal thing for the latters embellishment, better use, or completion. (ex. Key of a house; frame of a picture; bracelet of a watch machinery; bow of a violin)Accessions are not necessary to the principal thing, but the accessory and the principal thing must go together.

ART. 1167 - IF THE PERSON OBLIGED TO DO SOMETHING FAILS TO DO IT, THE SAME SHALL BE EXECUTED AT HIS COST.THIS SAME RULE SHALL BE OBSERVED IF HE DOES IT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE TENOR OF THE OBLIGATION. FURTHERMORE, IT MAY BE DECREED THAT WHAT HAS BEEN POORLY DONE BE UNDONE.

ART. 1168 - WHEN THE OBLIGATION CONSISTS IN NOT DOING, AND THE OBLIGOR DOES WHAT HAS BEEN FORBIDDEN HIM, IT SHALL ALSO BE UNDONE AT HIS EXPENSE.the debtor can ask any third person to perform the obligation due from the debtor should the latter fail to do the same. The debtor will be liable for all the expenses in connection with the performance or fulfillment of the obligation undertaken by the third person.

The words at his cost imply both the right to have somebody else perform the obligation and the right to charge the expenses thereof to the debtor.With respect to the situation wherein the debtor poorly undertook the obligation, the creditor has the right to have everything be undone at the expense of the debtor. The reason for this rule is to prevent the debtor from taking his obligation lightly.In case the prestation is for the debtor not to do a particular act or service and he nevertheless performs it, it shall likewise be undone at his own expense.

In Chaves v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court ruled that the original repairer can be held liable not only for the missing parts but also for the cost of the execution of the obligation for repairing the typewriter by another company.

ART. 1169 - THOSE OBLIGED TO DELIVER OR TO DO SOMETHING INCUR IN DELAY FROM THE TIME THE OBLIGEE JUDICIALLY OR EXTRAJUDICIALLY DEMANDS FROM THEM THE FULFILLMENT OF THEIR OBLIGATION.HOWEVER, THE DEMAND BY THE CREDITOR SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY IN ORDER

THAT DELAY MAY EXIST: 1) WHEN THE OBLIGATION OR THE LAW EXPRESSLY SO DECLARES; OR2) WHEN FROM THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OBLIGATION IT APPEARS THAT THE DESIGNATION OF THE TIME WHEN THE THING IS TO BE DELIVERED OR THE SERVICE IS TO BE RENDERED WAS A CONTROLLING MOTIVE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONTRACT; OR3) WHEN DEMAND WOULD BE USELESS, AS WHEN THE OBLIGOR HAS RENDERED IT BEYOND HIS POWER TO PERFORM

IN RECIPROCAL OBLIGATIONS, NEITHER PARTY INCURS IN DELAY IF THE OTHER DOES NOT COMPLY OR IS NOT READY TO COMPLY IN A PROPER MANNER WITH WHAT IS INCUMBENT UPON HIM. FROM THE MOMENT ONE OF THE PARTIES FULFILLS HIS OBLIGATION, DELAY BY THE OTHER BEGINS.

Delay or default can be committed by the debtor in which case it is known as mora solvendi.If it is committed by the creditor, it is known as mora accipiendi.

Delay in the performance of the obligation, however, must be either malicious or negligent. Hence, if the delay was only due to inadvertence without any malice or negligence, the obligor will no be held liable under Art 1170.Default generally begins from the moment the creditor demands the performance of the obligation. Without such demand, judicial or extra-judicial, the effects of default will not arise.Commencement of suit is a sufficient demand.Art 1169 is only applicable when the obligation is to do something other than the payment of money (Picson v. Picson).

If the contract involving a sum of money does not stipulate any interest and/or the time when it will be counted, interest will run only from the time of judicial or extra-judicial demand.However, damages or interest shall start to run only after judicial or extra-judicial demand. Hence, if the obligation were due on March 1, 2011, the aggrieved party can file suit for specific performance immediately after March 1, 2011. If extra-judicial demand however was made on March 5, 2011, damages shall be counted not from March 1, 1998 but from March 5, 2011.

The 2 cases where an extra-judicial demand should first be made prior to the filing of a civil suit are: ejectment cases and consignment cases. If there is no extra-judicial demand made prior to the filing of the civil suit, the ejectment case will be dismissed. In consignment cases, the debtor must first make an extra-judicial demand for the creditor to accept payment of the obligation. If the creditor unjustifiably refuses to accept payment, the debtor can now consign the amount in court for purposes of extinguishing the obligation.

Demand not necessary in 3 cases: 1) when the obligation or the law expressly so declares (ex. Promissory note providing for payment on a particular date without necessity of demand; Also the law expressly declares that taxes should be paid on a particular date); 2) when time is of the essence in a particular contract (ex. Stock market transactions; delivery for a one-day car exhibit); 3) when it would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to perform (ex. A debtor promised to constitute his house as a collateral for a particular loan which is payable at a particular date but before he can make the mortgage, he donates the house to his friend, demand from the creditor to constitute the house as a collateral is useless. In this case, his obligation becomes immediately demandable considering that he loses his right to the period within which to pay the loan).

Reciprocal obligations are those created and established at the same time, out of the same cause and which results in a mutual relationship of creditor and debtor between parties. In reciprocal obligations, the performance of one is conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfillment of the other.

ART. 1170 - THOSE WHO IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS ARE GUILTY OF FRAUD, NEGLIGENCE, OR DELAY, AND THOSE WHO IN ANY MANNER CONTRAVENE THE TENOR THEREOF, ARE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES.

The law specifically provides that damages can be awarded to any person who may have been prejudiced in the performance of the obligation as a result of fraud, negligence, delay or contravention of the tenor of the obligation.

Significantly, if any of these 4 bases of liability co-exist with a fortuitous event or aggravates the loss caused by a fortuitous event, the obligor cannot be excused from being liable on his obligation.

ART. 1171 - RESPONSIBILITY ARISING FROM FRAUD IS DEMANDABLE IN ALL OBLIGATIONS. ANY WAIVER OF AN ACTION FOR FUTURE FRAUD IS VOID.

When a party complies with or performs his obligation fraudulently, he is liable for damages.

If, in the contract of sale, A and B stipulated that any fraudulent act by another in the performance of his obligation shall not be a ground for the aggrieved party to file a suit against the other for fraud is a void stipulation. By express provision of law, such waiver is void.The dolo or fraud which is committed to induce a party to enter into a contract, thereby making the agreement annullable is not the one contemplated by Art 1171. The dolo or fraud under Art 1171 necessarily involves a valid agreement but, in the performance of the same, fraud is committed.

ART. 1172 - RESPONSIBILITY ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF EVERY KIND OF OBLIGATION IS ALSO DEMANDABLE, BUT SUCH LIABILITY MAY BE REGULATED BY THE COURTS, ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES.Kinds of Negligence according to source of obligation:

1) Contractual Negligence (culpa contractual), negligence in contracts resulting in their breach. This kind of negligence is not a source of obligation, it

merely makes the debtor liable for damages in view of his negligence in the fulfillment of a pre-existing obligation.2) Civil Negligence (culpa Aquiliana), negligence which by itself is the source of an obligation between the parties not so related before any pre-existing contract. It is also called tort or quasi-delict.3) Criminal Negligence (culpa criminal), negligence resulting in the commission of a crime, the same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under Art. 100 of the RPC, or create an action for quasi-delict under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code.

ART. 1173 - THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF THE OBLIGOR CONSISTS IN THE OMISSION OF THAT DILIGENCE WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION AND CORRESPONDS WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PERSONS, OF THE TIME AND THE PLACE. WHEN NEGLIGENCE SHOWS BAD FAITH, THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 1171 AND 2201, PARAGRAPH 2, SHALL APPLY.

IF THE LAW OR CONTRACT DOES NOT STATE THE DILIGENCE WHICH IS TO BE OBSERVED INTHE PERFORMANCE, THAT WHICH IS EXPECTED OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY SHALL BE REQUIRED.In essence, negligence is that want of care required by the circumstances.As a general rule, negligence must be proven.In Syquia v. CA, the law defines negligence as the omission of that diligence which is required by the

nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. In the absence of stipulation or legal provision providing the contrary, the diligence to be observed in the performance of the obligation is that which is expected of a good father of a family.In PNB v. CA, where the bank negligently dishonored the check of its depositor, the SC said, This court has ruled that a bank is under the obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions of pesos. Responsibility arising

from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is demandable. While petitioners negligence in this case may not have been attended with malice and bad faith, nevertheless, it caused serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation to private respondent for which she is entitled to recover reasonable moral damages.The law likewise provides that when negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, par 2 shall apply.In Samson v. CA, the SC discussing bad faith said: Bad faith is essentially a state of mind affirmatively

operating with furtive design or with some motive of ill-will. It does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong. Bad faith is thus synonymous with fraud and involves a design to mislead or deceive another, not prompted by an honest mistake as to ones rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive.Pursuant to Art 2201, par 2, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.

ART. 1174 - EXCEPT IN CASES EXPRESSLY SPECIFIED BY THE LAW, OR WHEN IT IS OTHERWISE DECLARED BY STIPULATION, OR WHEN THE NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION REQUIRES THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK, NO PERSON SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE EVENTS WHICH, COULD NOT BE FORESEEN, OR WHICH, THOUGH FORESEEN, WERE INEVITABLE.The general rule is that no one should be held to account for fortuitous cases which are those situations that could not be foreseen, or which though foreseen,

were inevitable. An act of God has been defined as an accident, due directly and exclusively to natural causes without human intervention, which by no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have expected, could have been prevented.In Nakpil v. CA, the SC said, To exempt the obligor from liability under Art 1174 of the Civil Code, for a breach of an obligation due to an act of God, the ff. must concur: a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor;

b) the event must either be unforeseeable or unavoidable; c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and d) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury. Thus, it has been held that when the negligence of a person concurs with an act of God in producing a loss, such person is not exempt from liability by showing that the immediate cause of the damage was the act of God. To be exempt from liability for loss because of an act of God, he must be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by which that loss or damage may have been occasioned.

In Sia v. CA, where the bank failed to notify its client of the flooding of its safety deposit box containing the said clients valuable stamp collection resulting in the destruction of the said collection, and where the said bank already had two previous experiences of the flooding of the said safety deposit box located inside the bank that was guarded 24 hrs a day, the SC reversed the ruling of the CA in not holding the bank for damages on the basis of fortuitous event and held that the bank was negligent.In Dioquino v. Laureano, the SC considered the sudden and unexpected throwing of stone directed at the

car of the plaintiff causing damage to the said car a fortuitous event.When the object of the prestation is generic, like the payment of a sum of money as a consequence of a loan contract, the debtor cannot avail of the benefit of a fortuitous event even if the object for which the loaned money is used, such as the construction of a factory, is wiped out by a typhoon. Also, even if there is a fortuitous event, a person can still be held responsible for the performance of his obligation if the law, or the stipulation of the parties, or when the nature of the obligation so requires.

The law can provide that, even if there is a fortuitous event, the obligor can still liable. An example of this is par. 3 of Art 1165 which provides that if the obligor delays, or has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do not have the same interest, he shall be responsible for any fortuitous event until he has effected delivery. Also Art 1268 provides that when the debt of a thing certain and determinate proceeds from a criminal offense, the debtor shall not be exempted from the payment of its price, whatever may be the cause for the loss, unless the thing having been offered by him to the person who should receive it, the latter refused without justification to accept it.

When the parties declare that they shall be liable even for loss due to a fortuitous event, they shall be so liable.When the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, the person obliged to perform the obligation shall likewise not be excused should a fortuitous event occur.

ART. 1175 - USURIOUS TRANSACTIONS SHALL BE GOVERNED BY SPECIAL LAWS.Usury is contracting for or receiving interest in excess of the amount allowed by law for the loan or use of money, goods, chattels or credit (Tolentino vs. Gonzales)Requisites for recovery of Interest:

1) The payment of interest must be expressly stipulated;2) The agreement must be in writing; and3) The interest must be lawful.A stipulation for the payment of usurious interest is void, that is, as if there is no stipulation as to interest.

ART. 1176 - THE RECEIPT OF THE PRINCIPAL BY THE CREDITOR, WITHOUT RESERVATION WITH RESPECT TO THE INTEREST, SHALL GIVE RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION THAT SAID INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID.THE RECEIPT OF A LATER INSTALLMENT OF A DEBT WITHOUT RESERVATION AS TO PRIOR INSTALLMENTS, SHALL LIKEWISE RAISE THE PRESUMPTION THAT SUCH INSTALLMENTS HAVE BEEN PAID.

Presumption is the inference of a fact not actually known arising from its usual connection with another which is known.Two kinds of Presumption:

1) Conclusive Presumption one which cannot be contradicted, like the presumption that everyone is conclusively presumed to know the law; and2) Disputable (or rebuttable) Presumption one which can be contradicted or rebutted by presenting proof to the contrary, like the presumption established in Art. 1176.

ART. 1177 - THE CREDITORS, AFTER HAVING PURSUED THE PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEBTOR TO SATISFY THEIR CLAIMS, MAY EXERCISE ALL THE RIGHTS AND BRING ALL THE ACTIONS OF THE LATTER FOR THE SAME PURPOSE, SAVE THOSE WHICH ARE INHERENT IN HIS PERSON; THEY MAY ALSO IMPUGN THE ACTS WHICH THE DEBTOR MAY HAVE DONE TO DEFRAUD THEM.

The law protects the creditors. The creditor is given by law all possible remedies to enforce such obligations.The ff. successive measures must be taken by a creditor before he may bring an action for rescission of an allegedly fraudulent sale: 1) exhaust the properties of the debtor through levying by attachment and execution upon all the property of the debtor, except such as are exempt by law from execution; 2) exercise all the rights and actions of the debtor, save those personal to him (accion subrogata); and 3) seek rescission of the contracts executed by the debtor in fraud of their rights (accion pauliana).

In Adorable v. CA, it was held that unless a debtor acted in fraud of his creditor, the creditor has no right to rescind a sale made by the debtor to someone on the mere ground that such sale will prejudice the creditors rights in collecting later on from the debtor. The creditors right against the debtor is only a personal right to receive payment for the loan; it is not a real right over the lot subject of the deed of sale transferring the debtors property.

ART. 1178 - SUBJECT TO THE LAWS, ALL RIGHTS ACQUIRED IN VIRTUE OF AN OBLIGATION ARE TRANSMISSIBLE, IF THERE HAS BEEN NO STIPULATION TO THE CONTRARY.

However, the person who transmits the right cannot transfer greater rights than he himself has by virtue of the obligation. Conversely, the person to whom the rights are transmitted can have no greater interest than that possessed by the transmitter at the time of transmission of the rights.

The transmissibility of rights may be limited, or altogether prohibited by stipulation of the parties. Thus, it can be stipulated in a contract that the assignment of any or all the rights provided by such contract is prohibited.Likewise, no transmission can be made of a particular right if the personal qualifications or circumstances of the transferor is a material ingredient attendant in the obligation. Hence, an author who specializes in horror stories written in a very distinct and peculiar style and who has been engaged by a publisher to write his (the authors) kind of horror stories for his magazine cannot transmit his rights arising from such obligation to

anybody else.Transmission must likewise be subject to pertinent laws.

SOURCES: OBLIGATIONS and CONTRACTS (Text and Cases) of STA. MARIA (2006 Edition)The LAW on OBLIGATIONS and CONTRACTS of Hector S. De Leon (2003 Edition)

BY: Benchie B. Gonzales

*

*