Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JEANETTE D. MOLINO v. SECURITY DINERS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 156162 2015-06-22	CCC INSURANCE CORPORATION v. KAWASAKI STEEL CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court cannot give any additional meaning to the plain language of the undertakings in the Surety and Performance Bonds. The extent of a surety's liability is determined by the language of the suretyship contract or bond itself. Article 1370 of the Civil Code provides that "[i]f the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control."[33]
	GR No. 179441 2010-08-09	ST. JAMES COLLEGE OF PARAÑAQUE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK VELASCO JR., J.
As a civil law concept, novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which terminates it, either by changing its objects or principal conditions, or by substituting a new debtor in place of the old one, or by subrogating a third person to the rights of the creditor.[24] Novation may be extinctive or modificatory. It is extinctive when an old obligation is terminated by the creation of a new one that takes the place of the former; it is merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the extent that it remains compatible with the amendatory agreement.[25] Novation may either be express, when the new obligation declares in unequivocal terms that the old obligation is extinguished, or implied, when the new obligation is on every point incompatible with the old one.[26] The test of incompatibility lies on whether the two obligations can stand together, each one with its own independent existence.[27]
	GR No. 187838 2009-12-23	ADRIATICO CONSORTIUM v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
Novation may either be express, when the new obligation declares in unequivocal terms that the old obligation is extinguished; or implied, when the new obligation is on every point incompatible with the old one.[36] The test of incompatibility is whether the two obligations can stand together, each one with its own independent existence.[37]
	GR No. 147950 2003-12-11	CALIFORNIA BUS LINES v. STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE QUISUMBING, J.
There are two ways which could indicate, in fine, the presence of novation and thereby produce the effect of extinguishing an obligation by another which substitutes the same. The first is when novation has been explicitly stated and declared in unequivocal terms. The second is when the old and the new obligations are incompatible on every point. The test of incompatibility is whether the two obligations can stand together, each one having its independent existence.[51] If they cannot, they are incompatible and the latter obligation novates the first.[52] Corollarily, changes that breed incompatibility must be essential in nature and not merely accidental. The incompatibility must take place in any of the essential elements of the obligation, such as its object, cause or principal conditions thereof; otherwise, the change would be merely modificatory in nature and insufficient to extinguish the original obligation.[53]