SOURCES OF OBLIGATIONS (ARTICLE 1157)

MEANING OF OBLIGATION - ARTICLE 1156. AN OBLIGATION IS A

JURIDICAL NECESSITY TO GIVE, TO DO OR NOT TO DO.

ELEMENTS OF OBLIGATION.
1. ACTIVE SUBJECT
● THE ONE WHO IS DEMANDING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
OBLIGATION. IT IS HE WHO IS IN HIS FAVOR THE OBLIGATION IS
CONSTITUTED ESTABLISH OR CREATED. HE IS CALLED THE
CREDITOR OR OBLIGEE.

2. PASSIVE SUBJECT
● THE ONE BOUND TO PERFORM THE PRESTATION TO GIVE, TO
DO, OR NOT TO DO.

3. PRESTATION OR OBJECT
● THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE OBLIGATION WHICH AS AN
ECONOMIC VALUE OR SUSCEPTIBLE OF PECUNIARY
SUBSTITUTION IN CASE OF NONCOMPLIANCE.

4. EFFICIENT CAUSE
● THE JURIDICAL TIE OR VINCULUM BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE
DEBTOR HAS BECOME BOUND TO PERFORM THE
PRESENTATION.

ILLUSTRATION:

UNDER A SERVICE CONTRACT, CEASAR BOUND HIMSELF TO

REPAIR BERNARD’S SPORT CAR FOR ONE MILLION PESOS
(p1,000,000).
ACTIVE SUBJECT - BERNARD
PASSIVE SUBJECT - CEASAR
PRESTARION - REPAIR OF THE CAR
EFFICIENT CAUSE - CONTRACT OF AGREEMENT

SUPPOSE CEASAR ALREADY REPAIRED THE CAR IT WAS AGREED

BERNARD WOULD PAY CEASAR AFTER REPAIR IS FINISHED, IT
THERE A CHANGE IN THE PASSIVE AND ACTIVE SUBJECT?
ANSWER: YES
ACTIVE SUBJECT - CEASAR
PASSIVE SUBJECT - BERNARD
RIGHT VIS-A-VIS
● WHEN THERE IS A RIGHT THERE IS A CORRESPONDING
OBLIGATION. RIGHT IS THE ACTIVE ASPECT WHILE OBLIGATION
IS THE PASSIVE ASPECT. IT IS LIKE THE TWO SIDES OF A COIN.
THUS, IT IS SAID THE CONCEPTS OF CREDIT AND DEBT ARE
TWO DISTINCT ASPECTS OF UNITARY CONCEPT OF
OBLIGATION.

PRESTATION
● THE PRESTATION IS NOT THE THING BUT THE PARTICULAR
CONDUCT OF THE DEBTOR. IT MAY CONSIST IN GIVING, DOING
OR NOT DOING SOMETHING.
(OBLIGATION TO GIVE CONSISTS IN THE DELIVERY OF A MOVABLE
OR IMMOVABLE THING TO THE CREDITOR.
OBLIGATION TO DO COVERS ALL KINDS OF WORKS OR SERVICES
WHETHER PHYSICAL OR MENTAL. AN OBLIGATION NOT TO DO
CONSISTS IN REFRAINING FROM DOING SOME ACTS. AN
OBLIGATION NOT TO DELIVER IS INCLUDED IN OBLIGATION NOT
TO DO, THUS, A DEBTOR SHALL NOT DELIVER A THING IF THE
COURT HAS ISSUED A RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION
TO THAT EFFECT)
NOTE:
THE DEFINITION OF OBLIGATION IN ARTICLE 1156 REFERS TO CIVIL
OBLIGATIONS WHICH ARE ENFORCEABLE IN COURT WHEN
BREACHED. IT DOES NOT COVER NATURAL OBLIGATIONS
(ARTICLES 1423 TO 1430) BECAUSE THESE OBLIGATIONS
CANNOT BE ENFORCED IN COURT BEING BASED MERELY ON
EQUITY AND NATURAL LAW AND NOT ON POSITIVE LAW.

OBLIGATIONS ARISE FROM:

(ARTICLE 1157 OF THE CIVIL CODE PROVIDES THAT OBLIGATIONS
ARISE FROM)
1. LAW
● OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM LAW
○ THERE ARE OBLIGATIONS WHICH ARISE FROM LAW SUCH
AS THE OBLIGATION OF PARENTS TO SUPPORT THEIR
MINOR CHILDREN (ART. 195, FC); THE DUTY OF SPOUSES
TO RENDER MUTUAL SUPPORT AND RESPECT TO ONE
ANOTHER (ART. 68, FAMILY CODE); DUTY OF TAXPAYERS
TO PAY THEIR TAXES TO THE GOVERNMENT (INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE).
■ OBLIGATIONS DERIVED FROM LAW ARE NEVER
PRESUMED
 ● UNLESS SUCH OBLIGATIONS ARE
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY LAW, THEY ARE
NOT DEMANDABLE AND ENFORCEABLE. AS
SUCH, THEY CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO
EXIST.

2. CONTRACTS
● OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM CONTRACTS
○ ARTICLE 1159. OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM CONTRACTS
HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW BETWEEN THE CONTRACTING
PARTIES AND SHOULD BE COMPLIED WITH IN GOOD
FAITH.
○ OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM CONTRACTS ENTERED
INTO BY CONTRACTING PARTIES ARE PRIMARILY
GOVERNED BY THE STIPULATIONS, CLAUSES,TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THEIR AGREEMENTS. THESE
STIPULATIONS, CLAUSES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS- IF
THEY DO NOT VIOLATE ANY LAW, MORALS, GOOD
CUSTOMS, PUBLIC ORDER, OR PUBLIC POLICY - SHALL
HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW AND SHOULD BE COMPLIED
WITH IN GOOD FAITH.

3. QUASI-CONTRACTS
● OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM QUASI-CONTRACTS
○ A QUASI CONTRACT IS A JURIDICAL RELATION WHICH
ARISES FROM A LAWFUL, VOLUNTARY AND UNILATERAL
ACTS OR ACTS EXECUTED BY SOMEBODY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ANOTHER FOR WHICH THE FORMER MUST
BE INDEMNIFIED TO THE END THAT NO ONE SHALL BE
ENRICHED OR BENEFITED AT THE EXPENSE OF
ANOTHER. IT IS A KIND OF CONTRACT CREATED
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ONE PARTY BUT WHOSE
MISSING CONSENT IS GIVEN BY LAW.
● PRINCIPAL KINDS OF QUASI-CONTRACT
A. NEGOTIORUM GESTIO
● THIS IS A JURIDICAL RELATION WHICH TAKES
PLACE WHEN SOMEBODY TAKES CHARGE OF THE
AGENCY OR MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS OR
PROPERTY OF ANOTHER WITHOUT ANY POWER
FROM THE LATTER (SEE ART. 2144). THE OWNER
OF THE BUSINESS OR PROPERTY SHALL
REIMBURSE THE GESTOR FOR THE NECESSARY
AND USEFUL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE
LATTER, AND FOR THE DAMAGES SUFFERED BY
 HIM IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS FUNCTIONS AS
GESTOR.

B. SOLUTIO INDEBITI
● THIS IS A JURIDICAL RELATIONS WHICH TAKES
PLACE WHEN SOMEBODY RECEIVED SOMETHING
FROM ANOTHER WITHOUT ANY RIGHT TO DEMAND
FOR IT, AND THE THING WAS UNDULY DELIVERED
TO HIM THROUGH MISTAKE. THE OBLIGATION TO
RETURN THE THING ARISES ON THE PART OF THE
RECIPIENT (ART. 2154)

4. ACTS OR OMISSIONS PUNISHED BY LAW;

● OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM ACTS OR OMISSIONS PUNISHED
BY LAW
● ARTICLE 1161. CIVIL OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM
CRIMINAL OFFENSES SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE
PENAL LAWS XXX

5. QUASI-DELICTS
● OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM QUASI-DELICT
● QUASI-DELICT, ALSO KNOWN AS CULPA AQUILIANA IS
EXPLAINED IN ART. 2176 AS FOLLOWS -
● 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 XXX
● ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT
1. THERE IS FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE
DEFENDANT RESULTING IN A WRONGFUL ACT OR
OMISSION, WHETHER VOLUNTARILY OR NOT, AND
WHETHER CRIMINAL OR NOT;
2. THERE IS DAMAGE AND INJURY SUFFERED BY ANOTHER
PERSON;
3. THERE IS A DIRECT CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN THE
FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE AND THE RESULTING DAMAGE
AND INJURY.

THAT IS, THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE

OF THE DAMAGE OR INJURY.
MEANING OF FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE
● THE CIVIL CODE EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF FAULT OR
NEGLIGENCE AS FOLLOWS:
● 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 PERSON,
OF THE TIME AND OF THE PLACE. XXX
● SUCCINCTLY STATED, NEGLIGENCE IS MERELY THE WANT OF
CARE AS REQUIRED BY THE ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS
RELATIVE AND NOT AN ABSOLUTE TERM (TOLENTINO, 1991 ED.,
P. 84). IT CHANGES WITH THE CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE PERSONS INVOLVED, THE TIME AND PLACE OF
OCCURRENCE OF THE FAULT. IT IS A QUESTION OF FACT.

DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE

● IN DETERMINING THE LIABILITY OF THE TORTFEASOR IN QUASI-
DELICT, THE LAW ONLY LOOKS FOR THE PROXIMATE CAUSE
AND NOT FOR THE REMOTE CAUSE. IT IS THE PROXIMATE
CAUSE WHICH HAS PRODUCED THE DAMAGE OR INJURY
COMPLAINED OF. HENCE, OTHER CAUSES IN THE CHAIN OF
EVENTS WHICH EXISTED BEFORE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE IN
THE CHAIN OF EVENTS WHICH EXISTED BEFORE THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE WOULD NOT BE INQUIRED INTO BECAUSE
IN THE NATURAL SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, THEY HAVE NOT
CONTRIBUTED DIRECTLY AND CLOSELY TO THE RESULTING
DAMAGE OR INJURY.
● ABROGAR VS COSMOS
G.R. NO. 164749
MARCH 15, 2017

“AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE FOREGOING CONCEPTS SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSIONS
THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF INTERGAMES, WAS THE PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF ROMMEL; AND THAT THE
NEGLIGENCE OF THE JEEPNEY DRIVER WAS NOT AN EFFICIENT
INTERVENING CAUSE.”
● FIRST, INTERGAMES WAS NEGLIGENCE IN NOT
CONDUCTING THE RACE IN A ROAD BLOCKED OFF FROM
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
● SECOND, INJURY TO THE PARTICIPANTS ARISING FROM
AN UNFORTUNATE VEHICULAR ACCIDENT ON THE ROUTE
WAS AN EVENT KNOWN TO AND FORESEEABLE BY
INTERGAMES;
● THIRD, THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE JEEPNEY DRIVER,
ALBEIT AN INTERVENING CAUSE, WAS NOT EFFICIENT.