Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 202 Alipio V. Ca G.R. No. 134100 Mendoza, J. DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: If From The Law or The Nature or The Wording of The Obligation

    Uploaded by

    Rizza
    29 views1 page
    The Court ruled that the obligation of the sublessees was joint rather than solidary. The document discusses a case where spouses had subleased a fishpond and did not fully pay the balance owed. While both lower courts ruled that the surviving spouse should pay the full amount, the Supreme Court determined that since the obligation was joint, the debt should be divided equally among the two couples with each owing P25,300. As the obligation was merely joint, the death of one sublessee did not extinguish the obligation of the other couple. The Court granted the petition on the basis that a obligation is presumed joint unless otherwise stated.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    ALIPIO v. CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Court ruled that the obligation of the sublessees was joint rather than solidary. The document discusses a case where spouses had subleased a fishpond and did not fully pay the balance owed. While both lower courts ruled that the surviving spouse should pay the full amount, the Supreme Court determined that since the obligation was joint, the debt should be divided equally among the two couples with each owing P25,300. As the obligation was merely joint, the death of one sublessee did not extinguish the obligation of the other couple. The Court granted the petition on the basis that a obligation is presumed joint unless otherwise stated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views1 page

    202 Alipio V. Ca G.R. No. 134100 Mendoza, J. DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: If From The Law or The Nature or The Wording of The Obligation

    Uploaded by

    Rizza
    The Court ruled that the obligation of the sublessees was joint rather than solidary. The document discusses a case where spouses had subleased a fishpond and did not fully pay the balance owed. While both lower courts ruled that the surviving spouse should pay the full amount, the Supreme Court determined that since the obligation was joint, the debt should be divided equally among the two couples with each owing P25,300. As the obligation was merely joint, the death of one sublessee did not extinguish the obligation of the other couple. The Court granted the petition on the basis that a obligation is presumed joint unless otherwise stated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    202

    ALIPIO v. CA
    G.R. No. 134100
    MENDOZA, J.
    DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: If from the law or the nature or the wording of the obligation
    the contrary does not appear, an obligation is presumed to be only joint

    FACTS:
    Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals
    Respondent Romeo Jaring was the lessee of a 14.5 hectare fishpond in Barito, Mabuco,
    Hermosa, Bataan. The lease was for a period of five years ending on September 12,
    1990. On June 19, 1987, he subleased the fishpond, for the remaining period of his
    lease, to the spouses Placido and Purita Alipio and the Manuel Spouses. The
    sublessees only satisfied a portion thereof, leaving an unpaid balance of
    P50,600.00.Purita Alipio moved to dismiss the case on the ground that her husband,
    Placido Alipio, had passed away on December 1, 1988.RTC rule that the Surviving
    spouse should pay. The trial court denied petitioner’s motion on the ground that since
    petitioner was herself a party to the sublease contract, she could be independently
    impleaded in the suit together with the Manuel spouses and that the death of her
    husband merely resulted in his exclusion from the case.
    CA ruled that Surviving spouse should pay. It is noted that all the defendants, including
    the deceased, were signatories to the contract of sub-lease. The remaining defendants
    cannot avoid the action by claiming that the death of one of the parties to the contract
    has totally extinguished their obligation.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the obligation is joint

    RULING:
    Yes. Petition granted The obligation is joint. Indeed, if from the law or the nature or the
    wording of the obligation the contrary does not appear, an obligation is presumed to be
    only joint, i.e., the debt is divided into as many equal shares as there are debtors, each
    debt being considered distinct from one another. Clearly, the liability of the sublessees
    is merely joint. Since the obligation of the Manuel and Alipio spouses is chargeable
    against their respective conjugal partnerships, the unpaid balance of P50,600.00 should
    be divided into two so that each couple is liable to pay the amount of P25,300.00.

    You might also like