Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS v. IAC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 169407 2015-03-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. AMADOR DOMINGO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The acceptance by a creditor of payments from a third person, who has assumed the obligation, will result merely to the addition of debtors and not novation. The creditor may therefore enforce the obligation against both debtors.[32] As the Court pronounced in Magdalena Estates, Inc. v. Rodriguez,[33] "[t]he mere fact that the creditor receives a guaranty or accepts payments from a third person who has agreed to assume the obligation, when there is no agreement that the first debtor shall be released from responsibility, does not constitute a novation, and the creditor can still enforce the obligation against the original debtor." The Court reiterated in Quinto v. People[34] that "[n]ot too uncommon is when a stranger to a contract agrees to assume an obligation; and while this may have the effect of adding to the number of persons liable, it does not necessarily imply the extinguishment of the liability of the first debtor. Neither would the fact alone that the creditor receives guaranty or accepts payments from a third person who has agreed to assume the obligation, constitute an extinctive novation absent an agreement that the first debtor shall be released from responsibility."
	GR No. 183804 2013-09-11	S.C. MEGAWORLD CONSTRUCTION v. ENGR. LUIS U. PARADA REYES, J.
The settled rule is that novation is never presumed,[33] but must be clearly and unequivocally shown.[34] In order for a new agreement to supersede the old one, the parties to a contract must expressly agree that they are abrogating their old contract in favor of a new one.[35] Thus, the mere substitution of debtors will not result in novation,[36] and the fact that the creditor accepts payments from a third person, who has assumed the obligation, will result merely in the addition of debtors and not novation, and the creditor may enforce the obligation against both debtors.[37] If there is no agreement as to solidarity, the first and new debtors are considered obligated jointly.[38] As explained in Reyes v. CA[39]:The consent of the creditor to a novation by change of debtor is as indispensable as the creditor's consent in conventional subrogation in order that a novation shall legally take place. The mere circumstance of AFP-MBAI receiving payments from respondent Eleazar who acquiesced to assume the obligation of petitioner under the contract of sale of securities, when there is clearly no agreement to release petitioner from her responsibility, does not constitute novation. At most, it only creates a juridical relation of co-debtorship or suretyship on the part of respondent Eleazar to the contractual obligation of petitioner to AFP-MBAI and the latter can still enforce the obligation against the petitioner. In Ajax Marketing and Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals which is relevant in the instant case, we stated that
	GR No. 123650 2009-03-23	WESTMONT BANK v. INLAND CONSTRUCTION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Answering the amended complaint, the bank underscored that it "had no knowledge, much less did it give its conformity to the alleged assignment of the obligation covered by PN# BD-2884 [-77]."[9]