Transcription
Hi guys, welcome to another episode of Eternia Blogger Law for the everyday laymen. Today, we take a part 1 on the law of applications, and we talk about the general principles of obligations. So, if you like my videos and you want to see more, please hit the subscribe button. Please remember that this is only for educational purposes and it's not a substitute for proper legal advice or for studying and understanding the law.
Okay, so what is an obligation? The law defines an obligation to be a juridical necessity to give, to do, or not to do. The word obligation comes from the Latin word "obligatio," which means to tie or bind. And in the definition of an obligation, the law states that it is a juridical necessity. Juridical necessity simply means that in case of non-compliance with an obligation, then the courts may be called upon for the enforcement or fulfillment of the obligation, and in the failure thereof, for the economic value of the obligation.
In proper cases and when warranted, damages may be awarded to the injured party. And damages should not be confused with damage. Because damage is the actual physical injury or harm which is suffered, while damages is the monetary or pecuniary compensation which is paid for suffering the injury or harm.
Now, when we talk about obligations in general, there are two. We have the civil obligations, and we have the natural obligations. For purposes of public law, we will be talking about the civil obligations unless otherwise stated. For natural obligations, I will be coming out with a video on that soon.
Now, what is a civil obligation? Those which give rise to a right to sue and for "spam." While natural obligations, on the other hand, arise from equity and natural law. In other words, they cannot be enforced, unlike those civil obligations which can be enforced. However, in case of natural obligations, in case a party receives something by virtue of a natural obligation, the law authorizes him to retain that thing or keep that thing in case it was voluntarily fulfilled or voluntarily performed by the debtor.
Now, we can go to the essential requisites of obligations. First, we have the active subject. This is the creditor. The creditor is an active subject because he is the party who is entitled to demand performance of the obligation. Second, we have the passive subject. This is the debtor. He is the party who is bound to the fulfillment of the obligation. He is passive because he does nothing until the demand for performance of the obligation is upon him. Third requisite, we have the object or prestation. This is the subject matter of the obligation. In other words, it is the conduct required to be observed by the party concerned. In the definition of an obligation, we have there the prestation. It would be either to give, to do, or not to do. And finally, we have the fourth requisite, which is the juridical tie. This is the efficient cause which binds the parties together. And this arises from the sources of obligations, which we will be discussing in a bit.
Now, as to forms of obligations, all forms are valid unless required by law, such as in the case of contracts where certain contracts are required to be in a certain form either for validity, enforceability, or public convenience. For a deeper discussion on the forms of contracts, please refer to my video link in the description below.
Now, there's a difference among obligations, rights, and wrongs. An obligation is an act which may be enforced under the law. While a right is the power to demand performance of a prestation. A wrong, on the other hand, or a legal wrong, is an act or an omission. Omission is simply a failure to perform an act. Wrong is either an act or omission violating the right of another. So, in other words, there must first be a right on the part of another, and second, there must be an obligation or a duty to respect that right and not violate it. And finally, there is an act or omission which violates that right belonging to another.
Now, obligations may be either real or personal. When we talk about real obligations, the subject matter is a thing that is to be delivered. While in personal obligations, the subject matter is an act. In case the act is to do, then that is a positive personal obligation. And if it is not to do, then that is a negative personal obligation.
Now, we can talk about the sources of obligations. Under the law, obligations arise from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts, and quasi-delicts.
When we talk about obligations arising from the law, this is not presumed. Obligations arising from law are never presumed. Only obligations which are in the Civil Code or in special laws are demandable. In other words, the law has to clearly say that an obligation is involved in order for it to be demandable. Why are these never presumed? Because they impose a burden upon the debtor. And for you to know if the law is the source of the obligation, the test is simple. If the act or condition on which it depends is simply a factor to determine when it is demandable, then the obligation arises from law. However, if the law merely recognizes or acknowledges the existence of that, then it does not arise from law. Some obligations that arise from law are the obligations to pay taxes or the obligation to support each other in case of husband and wife. For instance, a school has no obligation to pay its teachers clothing allowance if there is no law which demands it. So, if there is no law creating an obligation, then there is then it is not demandable.
Now, we can go to contracts, which is the second source of obligations. Now, the rule is contracts are obligatory upon the parties. They have the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith. This is known as the principle of obligatory force. However, this presupposes that the contract is valid and enforceable. Otherwise, different rules will apply. For a deeper discussion on contracts, I have a seven-part series. Please just refer to those.
Next, obligations may also arise from quasi-contracts. Now, this is the third source of obligations. And what are quasi-contracts? Quasi-contracts are juridical relations resulting from lawful, voluntary, and unilateral acts by virtue of which the parties become bound to each other to the end that no one will be unjustly enriched at the expense of another. Now, these quasi-contracts are not contracts because no consent is given here. However, by fiction of law, the law itself supplies that consent.
Now, in general, there are two kinds of quasi-contracts. Now, there are others, no, but let's just talk about the two most popular kinds of quasi-contracts. First, we have the negotiorum gestio. And the second is solution indebiti.
First, negotiorum gestio. What is this? This is the voluntary management of the property or affairs of another without the knowledge or consent of the latter. What's an example? Let's say you learned here. Let's use Vegetal. Vegetal is away on vacation. Goku is his neighbor. While Vegetal is away, the house of Vegetal burns down. No, doesn't burn down. There is a fire near Vegetal's house. And Goku performs an act to prevent the fire from spreading to Vegetal's house while Vegetal is away. However, in performing acts to save Vegetal's house from burning down, Goku incurred some expenses. Now, when Vegetal comes back, Goku will be entitled to claim reimbursement for the expenses which he has incurred, even though Vegetal did not have knowledge of the fire, and even though Vegetal did not have knowledge that Goku performed acts to save his house, and even if Vegetal did not give his consent that Goku perform acts to save his house. This is the principle of negotiorum gestio. And there are also other forms, no. You can study that on your own. I just gave one example of the voluntary or unofficial management of the property or affairs of another without his knowledge or consent.
Now, we can go to the second most popular one, that of solution indebiti. Solution indebiti, to make it quickly, simply payment by mistake. But to define it properly, this is the juridical relation which is created when a thing is received with no right to demand it, and it is unduly delivered through mistake. For instance, Goku pays PLDT his bill when the bill is not due. Since the bill is not due and demandable, there has been payment by mistake. And before the due date, Goku has a right to claim reimbursement or to ask for what he paid to be paid back to him by the first person or party who has received the payment by mistake.
Now, we can move on to delicts. Delicts is simply criminal offenses. No, and obligations arise from criminal offenses because right under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, which is our law on criminal offenses. Now, under Article 100 of the said code, no, every person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable. In other words, the commission of a crime gives rise to civil liability. And what does the civil liability consist of? It can consist of restitution, reparation, or indemnification. When we say restitution, to bring it back. When we say reparation, to repair. When we say indemnification, if we cannot return it, if we cannot repair it, we will just pay the value of the thing. So, again, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. However, there are cases when even if a person is found not to be criminally liable, he may also be found to be civilly liable and made to pay damages. Why is this? Because the quantum of proof in criminal cases is different from civil cases. In criminal cases, the quantum of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt. You must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the quantum of proof in civil cases for damages is lower. And the proof required there is only preponderance of evidence, meaning that the scales of justice being balanced, there is something which makes the other scale heavier. Now, between the criminal liability and the civil liability, even if the person is not found to be criminally guilty, he can still be found to be civilly liable to pay damages.
And the final source of obligations would be the quasi-delicts. And what are quasi-delicts? These are acts or omissions, there being fault or negligence, caused by a person, which causes damage to another or his person, his property, or his rights, and this obliges the person who caused damage to pay the injured party damages. The requisites are as follows: First, there must be an act. Second, there must be fault or negligence. Third, damage must have been caused. Fourth, there is a direct relation or a proximate cause. And what is proximate cause? It is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have occurred. This is from the case of De Buda, Buda, Bataclan versus Medina. And the final requisite for a quasi-delict is that there be no pre-existing contractual relation. However, in some cases, such as Air France versus Carrasco, so the requirement of no pre-existing contractual relation was brushed aside, so to speak. Now, in order to avoid damages, because the act which we just sued upon is also a tort. Quasi-delicts are also known as torts. So, again, the sources of obligation are law, contracts, quasi-contract, delicts, and quasi-delicts.
So, that's it for the general principles on obligations. Please wait for my next video, part two, on the nature and effect of obligations. So, I hope you have picked up a thing or two. And I hope to see you next time. Bye.