Article 1164. The creditor has a right to the fruits of the thing from the time the obligation to deliver it arises. However, he shall acquire no real right over it until the same has been delivered to him.
By: Kristia Capio
Artikulo 1164. Ang nagpapautang ay may karapatan sa mga bunga ng mga bagay na mula sa panahon na naipagkaloob na. Gayun pa man, hindi nya makakamit ang tunay na karapatan hanggang ang nasabing karapatan ay naipagkaloob sa kanya.
The general rule is that the creditor has the right to the fruits of the thing from the time the obligation to deliver it arises.
Ownership over the thing though, is only required when such an object is delivered to him. The essential element therefore of ownership is delivery. Therefore, although the creditor has the right has the right to the fruits of a thing from the time the obligation to deliver the thing itself arises, his ownership will start when the thing is delivered to him.
WHEN OBLIGATION TO DELIVER THE FRUITS ARISES
Anne sold her dog to Janine for 15,000 pesos and while in the possession of Anne, the dog gave birth to a puppy in which Janine is the one entitled to the puppy if Janine has already paid the amount of 15, 000 pesos to Anne.
PERSONAL RIGHT is the right or power of a person to demand from another — to give, to do, or not to do.
REAL RIGHT is a power over a specific thing (like the right of ownership or possession) and is binding on the whole world.
If Anne was a creditor to a house and Janine was the debtor and both agreed that the payment for the rent of the house would be monthly. Janine upon paying is what we call REAL RIGHT. But upon Anne expecting Janine to pay every month is what we call PERSONAL RIGHT.
Case
A. A. ADDISON vs. MARCIANA FELIX and BALBINO TIOCO
G.R. No. L-12342. August 3, 1918.
Petitioner Addison sold four parcels of land to Defendant spouses Felix and Tioco located in Lucena City. Respondents paid P3, 000.00 for the purchase price and promised to pay the remaining by installment. The contract provides that the purchasers may cancel the contract within one year after the issuance of title on their name.
The petitioner went to Lucena for the survey designaton and delivery of the land but only 2 parcels were designated and 2/3 of it was in possession of a Juan Villafuerte.
The other parcels were not surveyed and designated by Addison.
Addison demanded from petitioner the payment of the first installment but the latter resists that there was no delivery and as such, they are entitled to get back the 3,000 purchase price they gave upon the execution of the contract.
Whether or not there was a valid delivery.
The record shows that the plaintiff did not deliver the thing sold. With respect to two of the parcels of land, he was not even able to show them to the purchaser; and as regards the other two, more than two-thirds of their area was in the hostile and adverse possession of a third person.
It is true that the same article declares that the execution of a public instruments is equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, but, in order that this symbolic delivery may produce the effect of tradition, it is necessary that the vendor shall have had such control over the thing sold that, at the moment of the sale, its material delivery could have been made. It is not enough to confer upon the purchaser the ownership and the right of possession. The thing sold must be placed in his control. When there is no impediment whatever to prevent the thing sold passing into the tenancy of the purchaser by the sole will of the vendor, symbolic delivery through the execution of a public instrument is sufficient. But if there is an impediment, delivery cannot be deemed effected.
Published by Kristia Capio
Student • Traveller
View all posts by Kristia Capio
OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS 