This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-09-11 |
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 | |||||