Article 1201
Article 1201
Obligation & Contracts
by: Gretzen M. Colona
“ The choice shall produce no effect except from the time it has been communicated. “
Ang piniling prestation ay hindi magkakabisa maliban sa oras na ito ay ipinaalam.
Choice of prestation may be communicated in writing, verbally, impliedly or by any other unequivocal means.
Effects of choice or selection:
1. The obligation will be limited only to the chosen or selected prestation.
2. The choice is irrevocable, otherwise, the other party might be exposed to damages which may arise from costly preparation in waiting for the performance of the announced prestation.
The performance is not binding if the debtor simply performed his choice of prestation without announcing it to the creditor. The debtor can recover what he had delivered, performed, or paid, under the law on quasi-contracts.
The law grants the debtor to make the choice unless the creditor is expressly granted the said right. When making the choice, the law does not require that the choosing party first secure the conformity of the other party, because that will only frustrate the clear intention of the law and the alternative nature of the obligation.
Effect of delay in making a selection
The delay in making a selection does not constitute to losing the selection. However, if before any choice is made, a case is filed in court, an issue may arise regarding the prestation that will be enforce. The Code is silent on the point of who will make the selection, although there are three possibilities:
- the court will make the choice;
- the court may order the debtor, or
- the creditor will make the choice within a certain period.
The right to choose belongs to the debtor, if he does not do so, the choice can be made for him by the creditor by applying the principle of article 1167
Title
ONG GUAN CAN and THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
THE CENTURY INSURANCE CO., LTD., defendant-appellant.
VILLAMOR, J.
Facts
A building of the plaintiff was insured against fire by the defendant in the sum of P30,000, as well as the goods and merchandise therein contained in the sum of P15,000. The house and merchandise insured were burnt, while the policies issued by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff were in force.
The plaintiff filed a cased against the defendant, in the reason that the defendant wanted to just rebuild the burnt house instead paying of the plaintiff the amount that was insured. The Lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, sentencing the defendant company to pay him the sum of P45,000, the value of certain policies of fire insurance.
The defendant appealed from this judgment, and now insists that the same must be modified and that it must be permitted to rebuild the house burnt, and that the appellant be relieved from the payment of the sum in which said building was insured. In the instance case, the record shows that the appellant company did not give a formal notice of its election to rebuild.
And while the witnesses spoke of the proposed reconstruction of the house destroyed, yet the plaintiff did not give his assent to the proposition, for the reason that the new house would be smaller and of materials of lower kind than those employed in the construction of the house destroyed. The Supreme court did not find any merits that would justify the reversal of the finding of the trial judge. The decision of the lower court was affirmed with the cost against the appellant.
Issue
Whether or not the lower court erred in the decision in favor of the plaintiff.
Held
No, the judgment appealed from was in accordance with the merits of the case and the law. The Supreme court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court.
Comments
Post a Comment