Novation: (Articles 1291 1304)
1. Concept: (Ajax Marketing vs. Court of Appeals, 248 S 222;
Garcia v. Llamas, 417 S 292)
2. Requisites: (Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 191 S 493; Heirs of
Servando Franco vs. Spouses Gonzales, June 27, 2012)
3. Extent: (Velasquez v. CA, 309 S 514; Republic Glass v. Qua;
435 P 480)
4. Presumption: (Martinez v. Cavives, 25 P 181; NPC v. Dayrit,
125 S 849; Magdalena Estates v. Rodriguez, 18 S 967)
5. Authority: (Banate vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, July
13, 2010; Hernandez-Nieverra vs. Hernandez, February 14,
2011)
6. Kinds:
a. As to Form:
i. Express: (California Bus Lines v. State Investment, 418
S 297; Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals, 29 S 791)
ii. Implied: (Ramos vs. Gibbon, 67 P 371; National
Exchange Co. v. Ramos, 51 P 310)
b. As to Effects:
i. Partial or Modificatory: (Bisaya Land Transportation
v. Sanchez, Aug 31, 1987)
ii. Total or Extinctive: (Fua Cam Lu v. Yap Fauco, 74 P
287)
c. As to Essence: (Cochingyan vs. R & B Surety, 151 S 339)
7. Objective Novation:
8. Subjective or Personal Novation:
a. Change in the Debtor:
i. Delegacion:
ii. Expromission: (Bangayan v. CA, 278 S 379; Gaw vs.
IAC, 220 S 405; Asia Bank vs. Elser, 54 P 994)
b. Change in the Creditor, Subrogation: (Lorenzo Shipping v.
Chubb and Sons, 431 S 266)
9. Legal Subrogation:
a. Presumption: (Chemphil vs. Court of Appeals, 251 S 257)
b. Subrogation v. Assignment of Credit
Prescription (Article 1106-1155)
General Provisions (Articles 1106 1116)
1. Necessity: (Director of Lands v. Funtillar, May 23, 1986)
2. Definition and Elements:
3. Prescription vs. Laches: (Insurance of Phil Islands vs. Sponses
Gregorio, Feb 14, 2011)
4. In relation to registered land: (Catholic Bishop vs. Court of
Appeals, Nov 14, 1996; Marcelino vs. Court of Appeals, 210 S
444; Mateo and Matias v. Diaz, Jan 17, 2002)
5. Classes - Acquisitive vs. Extinctive: (Morales vs. CFI, 97 S 872)
6. Limitations and Extent of Prescription:
a. Against Minors: (Vda. De Alberto vs. Court of Appeals,
173 S 436)
b. Against the State: (Republic vs. PNB, 13 S 42; Director of
Forest Admin vs. Fernandez, 192 S 121; Republic vs.
Court of Appeals, 131 S 532)
c. Against Spouses: (Pacio v. Billon, 1 S 384)
d. Rights of Creditors: (Sambrano v. CTA, 101 P 1)
7. Waiver of Prescription: (DBP vs. Adil, 161 S 307)
8. Prescriptive Periods: (DBP vs. Ozarraga, September 20, 1965;
Alvero vs. Reas, 35 S 210)
Prescription of Ownership: (Articles 1117 1138, Articles
526-529)
1. Requisites:
2. Ordinary vs. Extraordinary: (Godinez vs. Court of Appeals, 135
S 351; Heirs of Amarante vs. Court of Appeals, 185 S 585)
3. Concept of Possession:
a. In the concept of an owner: (Republic vs. Court of
Appeals, 146 S 15)
b. Public: (Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 112 S 542)
c. Peaceful: (Coronado vs. Court of Appeals, 191 S 814)
d. Uninterrupted: (Corpus vs. Padilla, 5 S 814)
4. Prescription over registered properties: (Alfonso v. Jayme, Jan
30, 1960; Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 258 S 651)
5. Good Faith: (Negrete vs. CFI of Marinduque, 48 S 113; Magtira
vs. Court of Appeals, 96 S 680)
6. Just Title: (Doliendo vs. Biarnesa, 7 P 232; Solis vs. Court of
Appeals, 176 S 678)
7. Prescription over illegally acquired movables: (Tan vs. Court of
Appeals, 195 S 355)
8. Computation of Time:
a. Movables
b. Immovables
c. Tacking: (South City Homes vs. Republic, 185 S 693)
Prescription of Actions: (Articles 1139 to 1155, Article 649)
1. Mere lapse of time:
a. Movables: (Tan v. CA, 195 S 355; Dira vs. Taega, 33 S
479)
b. Immovables: Good Faith, Bad Faith
2. Mortgage Action: (DBP v. Tomeldan, 101 S 741)
3. Imprescriptible Actions:
4. Prescriptive Periods:
a. Obligation created by Law: (Espaol vs. Philippine
Veterans Administration, 137 S 314; Huang v. CA, 236 S
420)
b. Written contract; judgment:
c. Oral contract, Quasi-contract:
d. Injury to the rights of the plaintiff, Quasi-delict: (Kramer
Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 178 S 518;Callanta vs. Carnation
Phils., 145 S 268)
e. Forcible entry, Defamation: (Vda. De Borromeo vs. Pogoy,
126 S 217)
5. When Period Begins to Run: (Tolentino vs. Court of Appeals,
162 S 66)
6. Interruptions of Periods:
a. By Fortuitous Event: (Provident vs. Court of Appeals, 222
S 125)
b. By Extrajudicial Demand: (Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals,
224 S 175)
c. By civil action: (Cabrera vs. Tinio, 8 S 542; Olympia
International vs. Court of Appeals, 180 S 353)
d. By written acknowledgment (Ramos vs. Condez, 20 S
1146)
