OBLICON Dec 6. 2006 Kinds of Mora 1. Mora SOlvendi (on part of debtor) 2.

Mora Accipiendi (on part of creditor) 3. Compensation Morae (reciprocal obligation) *if none of them performs prestation, both in compensation morae; if one of them moves, then he could compel the other party to perform his part? Exception non adempleti contractus (defense that one is not compelled to perform his prestation when the other contracting party is not yet prepared to perform his prestation) e.g. Contract of Purchase of Sale Agreement (Acceptance) on what would be bought and how much would be paid: agreement is perfected But still executory: both parties must perform their respective obligations/ prestations unless sale in market (e.g. sale of fish for P150) where obligation to pay and deliver the good is executed instantly! (no delay, seldom would the vendor would ask for damages if the buyer does not hand over the paymentits more expensive to sue) *the seller would not give the good in the risk of losing the good if the buyer does not pay for the good he does not lose the ownership yet until the goods are paid for (tender of payment and consignation) if done through the court, the goods would be kept by the court and the buyer would have to pay through the court *if the party is willing and able to perform his prestation, he could make the other party incur in delay; if he does: e.g. if the seller already performed his prestation (delivers the good), and the buyer has not paid for the goods yet, so there mora solvendi (delay on the part of the debtor) 1

DECEMBER 6 if the buyer already pays for the goods then the seller has not delivered the goods yet, there is mora accipiendi (delay on the part of the creditor) ***a reciprocal obligation entails 2 prestations: the obligation to pay and obligation to deliver the goods Vda. De Villaruel vs. Manila Motor Co., Inc (ponente: JBL Reyes) Context: Villaruel is the owner of the properties leased to the Company but with the WWII, Japanese forces occupied the premises, then consequently by the American Forces. After the war, the petitioners and the respondents agreed to renew the contract. The respondent, through the new manager, converted the properties to a movie houseetc. The petitioners did not accept the payment of the Manila Motor Co (so mora accipiendi) the petitioners wanted the respondents to pay for the period when the Japanese occupied the premises as its headquartersthe Americans paid for their stay so the petitioners and respondents agreed to not pay for it ***lessor and lessee relations the lessor should make the lessee use and enjoy the property being leased (so the maintenance of the premises is under the obligation of the lessor) the lessees main obligation is to pay the rentals if the lessor fails to make the lessee use and enjoy the property then the lessee is not obliged to pay 2 kinds of disturbances: pertubacion de mero hecho: act of trespass perturbacion de derecho: trespass under color of title *so issue is WON there is sufficient and justifiable reason for the

OBLICON petitioner not to accept the payment of the respondents lease contract in common law: there is property right to the lessee: the lease right is considered as a property right (he could deal with it as if its a separate property) civil law: regards a lease for years as a mere transfer of the use and enjoyment of the property; and holds the landlord bound, without any express covenant, to keep it in repair and otherwise fit for use and enjoyment for the purpose for which it is leased, even when the need of repair or the unfitness is caused by an inevitable accident, and if he does hot do so, the tenent may have the lease annulled, or the rent reverse accession siblings own a property, which they all sold. However, one of the siblings built a conjugal home on the property. When the buyer was already claiming the property, he wanted to eject the occupants of the land but the occupants (1 of the siblings and the spouse) alleged that they could not be ejected from the property because its part of the conjugal property Tengco vs. CA No mora accipieni because the respondent had just cause for not accepting the payment, for not being the legal owner of the property leased. Central Bank vs. CA Context: TOlentino applied for a P80k loan in Island Savings Bank, which the Central Bank eventually proclaimed to be not capable of functioning, and thus was subsequently closed. Before closing, only P17k was given to Tolentino, and as a security/collateral their 100 hectares 2

DECEMBER 6 land. The Tolentinos also already paid in advance for the interest of their P80k for 6 months. But since the Tolentinos has not paid the loan, the Bank moved for its foreclosure and was auctioned. Court held that the foreclosure should correspond to the amount loaned to the Tolentinos. *Demand is important: cases when demand is not needed: 1. when law provides so, e.g. Tax Laws 2. Express stipulation to that effect e.g. Promisory note 3. Period is controlling motive or the principal inducement for the creation of the obligation e.g. Abella vs. Francisco: Francisco purchased lands from the Government, which he resells to Abella. Abella however was not able to pay for the amount due on the date due, but he tried to pay the amount 4 days later. The petitioner brought an action to compel the defendant to execute the deed of sale The court held that vendor executed the contract to pay off with the proceeds thereof certain obligations which fell due in the same month of December, the time fixed for the payment of the selling price was essential in the transaction e.g. creation of wedding dress 4. Demand is already useless

Contravention of the Tenor Chavez v. Gonzales: did not repair the typewriter, returned in shambles *Telefast v. Castro: did not transmit telegram overseas containing the news that the mother of the recipients died already (defense: force majurenot merited) *moral damages were awarded (), grossly negligent since the company did not inform the plaintiffs about the circumstances which they faced so

OBLICON

DECEMBER 6

they were not able to transmit their message Arrieta v. NARIC: breach through default/delay, but contravention of the tenor in the sense that NARIC already knew that they are not capable of supplying the amount due to the winner of the bidding (did not have enough money to open a letter of credit: contract of loan) but still continued to offer the contract for bidding Magat v. Medialdea: did not open a letter of credit to cover payment of goods he ordered *moral damages are not usually awarded in breach of contract, unless the contract is breached in a reckless and wanton manner, or in bad faith. Letter of Credit: at least 3 contracts 1. contract of loan 2. Contract of sale 3. contract of transportation 4. contract of agency between the bank that opens the credit and the corresponding bank where the goods would be purchased (abroad)