This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-11-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other.[22] The test of incompatibility is whether or not the two obligations can stand together, each one having its independent existence. If they cannot, they are incompatible and the latter obligation novates the first.[23] The execution of Contract to Sell No. 2491-V created new obligations in lieu of those under Contract to Sell No. 2482-V, which are already considered extinguished upon the execution of the second contract. The two contracts do not have independent existence for to hold otherwise would present an absurd situation where the parties would be liable under each contract having only one subject matter. | |||||
|
2005-11-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| While the husband is the recognized administrator of the conjugal property under the Civil Code, there are instances when the wife may assume administrative powers or ask for the separation of property. In the abovementioned instances, the wife must be authorized either by the court or by the husband. Where the husband is absent and incapable of administering the conjugal property, the wife must be expressly authorized by the husband or seek judicial authority to assume powers of administration. Thus, any transaction entered by the wife without the court or the husband's authority is unenforceable in accordance with Article 1317[32] of the Civil Code. That is the status to be accorded Contract to Sell No. 2491-V, it having been executed by petitioner Marcelina without her husband's conformity. | |||||