E2017 |Subject Oblicon | Professor Disini

Magdalena Estates v. Rodriguez

Date : December 17, 1966 Petitioner : Antonio Rodriguez and ermina Rodriguez Res!ondent : Magdalena Estates Ponente : Regala, ". Doctrine : Novation is never presumed. Either of two things must be established: first, that the old and new contracts are incompatible on all points, or, second, that the will to novate is shown by express agreement of the parties, or may be inferred from their acts #acts: 1. Rodriguez bought from agdalena Estate a parcel of land in !". #here was an unpaid balance of $hp %&&&. '. (ppellants executed a promisory note to pay the agdalena Estate the amount due within )& days from *an. +, 1,%+ -with interest at the rate of ,./annum0. 1. 2n the same date, Rodriguez and 3uzon 4urety executed a bond in favor of the appellee. 5hen the obligation of Rodriguez has become due and demandable, 3uzon 4urety paid agdalena Estate the sum on %6. 7. agdalena Estates demanded the payment of $)%%.8, as interest on the principal of $%&&&. (ppellants refused, hence this suit. #" of anila: Ruled in favor of the appellee ordering the appellants to pay the sum of $)%% with interest from the date of the filing of the complaint. "9:: 2rdered the appellants to pay the sum of $)%% plus legal interest from the time of ;udicial demand, $1&& as atty<s fees, and costs "ontention of Rodriguez: 1. agdalena Estates waived or condoned the said interests. a. (rt. 1'1%: =5hen the oblige accepts the performance, 6nowing itsincompleteness or irregularity and without expressing any protest or ob;ection,the obligation is deemed fully complied with.> b. (rt. 1'%1: =:f the debt produces interest, payment of the principal shall not bedeemed to have been made until the interests have been recovered.> '. #he obligation of the defendant was totallt extinguished by the payment or condonation. 1. #he promisory note novated when they un?ualifiedly accepted the surety bond which merely guaranteed the payment of %6. 7. No demand was made for the payment of the interest.

E2017 |Subject Oblicon | Professor Disini

$ssue: 1. 2. Ratio : 1. No. !he appellee did not protest nor ob"ect to the pa ment of the #$% because it knew that it was the complete amount appearing at the contract with the surety. &t cannot protest for non'pa ment of the interest from the suret ( nor can it appl part of the amount. a. )rt. 12$2 '12$* does not appl in this case because it is onl applicable to a person owing several debts of the same %ind of a single creditor. b. )rt. 12$+ is merel director ( and not mandator . '. No. There was no novation. Novation b presumption has never been favored. a. &t needs to be established that the old and new contracts are incompatible in all points. b. !he will to novate needs to appear b e,press agreement of the parties or in acts of similar import. c. )n obligation to pa a sum of mone is not novated in a new instrument wherein the old is ratified b changing onl the terms of pa ment and adding other obligations not incompatible with the old one( or when the old one is merel supplemented b the old one. d. !he mere fact that the creditor receives a guarant from a third person when there is no agreement that the first debtor shall be released from responsibilit does not constitute a novation. WON there was condonation on the part of Magdalena Estates. WON there was a novation of the obligation when Magdalena Estates accepted w/o reservation the subsequent agreement in the suret bond