so now we can move on to the topic of fortuitous events okay so when you talk about for to is fortuitous events these are simply events which cannot be foreseen or even if foreseen are inevitable okay technically there two kinds of fortuitous events we have the fortuitous event per se or acts of man which are acts independent of the will of the data but not necessarily independent of the will of other human beings now so one example of this would be armed robbery by armed by armed men no okay and we also have that force majeure or acts of God okay force majeure acts of God simply refer to events which are totally independent of the will of all humans such as earthquakes volcanic eruptions etc okay and for purposes of the loan oblique on the words fortuitous event enforcement your are used interchangeably okay so they both technically mean the same thing okay so what are the requisites in order for party to be wait wait first the general rule in case of fortuitous events okay a party or any person shall not be liable in case there is loss or damage which is brought about by a fortuitous event okay so let's say your adapter and you're obligated to bring to delivery thing and nothing is lost because of an earthquake then you are not liable because it's not your fault that earthquake but the thing was lost due to the earthquake okay now that is only the general rule there are exceptions of course under the law in case there is a delay default or fraud negligence or contravention of the ten or then the depper will be liable even if the thing is lost due to a fortuitous event okay if the debtor was the supposed to deliver by a certain date and he did not so deliver on that date and the thing was lost due to an earthquake and he is liable for that loss okay second the debtor is also liable for loss or damage because of fortuitous event if he has promised to deliver the thing to two or more persons who do not have the same interests okay the law punishes the debtor for his evident bad faith okay and next no the debtor is liable for loss or damage of the thing in case the obligation to deliver the thing arises from a criminal offense okay and finally the debtor is still liable to perform the obligation in case nothing is generic hey remember Janice never perish has not Janice none compared with so even if the thing agreed upon is lost not the applicant still get another kind of the same kind and quality from the class or generous to which the thing belongs okay it never may also be liable for loss in case of fortuitous event in case the parties so stipulate no if they agree if they expressly agree that the debtor will be liable for loss in case offer to it is event and finally we have the doctrine of assumption of risk okay the doctrine of assumption of risk is based upon the principle of volunteen on injuria okay well volenti non fit injuria okay this simply means that no wrong is done by a person who voluntarily consent okay so a simple example here is a person who enrolls in a martial arts class or a knife fighting class okay in this case the person knowingly enters into the obligation knowing that he may be injured because the training necessarily involves learning how to injure others okay with a knife or with martial arts techniques okay in this case can see if the person is made to sign a waiver then he voluntarily assumes the risk and the instructor should not be held liable for damage to or bodily harm in case of fortuitous event okay so in other words the principle of vollentine unfitting Duryea simply contemplates the scenario where a debtor enters into an obligation with full knowledge of the risk okay so remember the general rule on fortuitous events that no person will be liable for loss or damage caused by a fortuitous event okay but for that rule to apply these requisites must be present first the event must be independent of the will of the debtor second the event could not have been foreseen or a foreseeable must be in available okay third the event must be of such character as to render it impossible for the debtor to comply with this obligation in a normal manner and finally the debtor must be free from any participation or aggravation of the injury caused to the creditor okay so in other words there must be no concurrent negligence on the part of the debtor likewise the fortuitous event must be the proximate and sole cause of the injury suffering okay and again that was the general rule the exceptions just remember them okay in in case of the full fraud negligence contravention of ten or okay so just remember that on fortuitous events okay now we can move on to u3 okay generally usually is contracting for or receiving an amount in excess of that allowed by law for the loan or use of money goods shuttles or credits okay now the current I said earlier know that it's contracting for receiving an amount in excess of flow okay so does the loss at the the amount yes now we have a legal rate of interest and according to central bank circular number seven ninety nine which took effect July 1 2013 the legal rate of interest is six percent per annum or per year okay now what about these credit card companies that impose a rate of interest higher than that of six percent legal rate no they impose a 3.25 percent Interest per month okay is that valid is that legal yes it is why because we have central bank circular number nine zero five which was enacted in nineteen eighty two and took effect in 1983 if I'm not mistaken now and the effect of the central bank circular was to suspend the usury law why because it said is it removed the ceiling rather it removed the ceiling on leak on the rates of interest for loans for balances etc okay so effectively the usury law is suspended or non-existent no and people will not be punished for imposing usurious rates of interest or rates of interest which are higher than the legal rate of interest of six percent that's why banks can charge 3.25 percent Interest per month which is way way higher than the legal rate set by low of six percent per annum paper per year okay because you multiply 3.25 by 12 months that's definitely higher than six percent no per year okay now despite that now despite the fact that the banks and other lenders are allowed to impose a rate of interest which is higher than that set by law the Supreme Court in the cases of Alameda versus court of appeals as well as ma Kalina versus BPI and other cases now has said that this Authority no or this central bank circular number nine zero five does not mean that it does not grant blanket authority to lenders to impose rates which will unduly enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets in other words the effect of those pronouncements is that the Supreme Court can equitably reduce the interest charged against certain debtors in case the interest rates are found to be iniquitous unconscionable or inequitable okay so if it shocks the conscience now if the interest rate is shocking to the conscience conscience then the Supreme Court may equitably reduce that rate of interest okay now please just refer to my episode on loan if you want to learn more about the rules on interest okay so usury law is suspended and while lenders may impose rates of interest higher than that of the legal rate of 6% per annum they should not impose rates that are unconscionable or iniquitous otherwise they may be equitably reduced by the court again me okay so now we can move on to a presumptions at Milano in case a creditor receives or gives a receipt for the principal pay without indicating or without reserving his right to the interest this gives rise to a presumption that the interest has been paid also if the principal gives a receipt for a later installment in case of an obligation to be paid in installments receipt of that installment leads to the presumption also that prior installments have also been paid okay however these are only disputable presumptions which may be overcome by proof to the contrary they are not conclusive presumption okay now these presumptions do not apply in the following cases okay first of course if there is an oral or written reservation by the creditor because as already reserved his right either to the interest or to the prior installments okay second if the receipt issued by the creditor does not state that it is issued for a particular installment if it is even if it is they tend okay you cannot just infer that the date indicated there refers to the installment concern okay next all we have in case the receipt given by the creditor is only for part of the principle okay in order for the presumptions mentioned earlier to apply it must be a receipt for the whole of the principal in order for the presumption that interests have been paid to apply okay but if the receipt is only for part of the principal the presumption does not apply okay finally I know not yet number four know in case of payment of taxes payment of taxes for the current year does not lead to the presumption that the taxes for previous years have been paid okay and finally in case the reengage that non-payment has actually been proven with of course the presumptions will not apply because now there is proof to the contrary now we move on to the remedies of the creditor in case of in case of protection of his credit okay what are the remedies of the creditor to protect his credit because the law says the creditor is given remedies to protect his credit okay and the very first one is of course to exhaust all the assets or property of the debtor okay he can use the various legal remedies available such as attachment no second note there is what is known as action Suburgatory are in action Suburgatory refers to the right of the creditor to be subrogated to all the rights of the debtor no to protect his credit now take note in case of actions of braga Toria the creditor does not become the creditor of the third person okay the creditor merely acts in the place of the debtor okay so for action and Suburgatory to take place the following are the requisites first of course there must be a death owing from the debtor to that credit or second the creditor is prejudiced by the inaction of the debtor to run after a proceed against a third person who owes the debt or pay third no the creditor has exhausted the properties of the data okay that's important because salsa borracha Toria can only be availed of after the creditor has already exhausted the properties of the okay the next remedy of the creditor would be action pollyana okay and this is the right of the creditor to impugn pay or challenge that their first acts which may have been done to defraud the creditor and how does the creditor do this through a resistor reaction the creditor will file an action for rescission of the fraudulent contracts which the debtor may have entered into for more information on resistible contractions of this nature please just refer to my episode on the resistible contract okay so in order for the creditor to claim this action he must have exhausted all his legal remedies why because the action for rescission in this space is only its subsidiary action okay meaning it can only be a build-off if the other remedies have already been unveiled off okay so the requisites for action pollyana are there must be a prior credit owing to the creditor from the debtor okay next though there is a subsequent transfer from the debtor to a third party meaning after the credit is taken from the creditor the debtor will now transfer property to a third person okay next now the creditor must have no other legal remedy okay the Act also of the creditor must be fraudulent and the third party must be an accomplice in the fraud okay why must he be an accomplice because transfers made to third parties are in good faith are valid or may be valid in general okay and it is generally the third person who has connived in the fraud or who is in bad faith that can be compelled to return the object okay and the final principle under the nature and effect of obligations is the principle that rights are transmissible okay as a general rule rights are transmissible okay however there are exceptions the exceptions are the situations where rights may not be transmitted okay first exception is when transmission is prohibited by law okay such as when they are purely personal in nature like contracts of agency or partnership or polka-dot oh no you may refer to my videos on these topics or more information okay all rights may not be transmitted when there is a stipulation by the parties okay one example would be the gym memberships no gym memberships cannot be transmitted from one person to person no based on the ones I have seen okay that's a common stipulation that I have seen in gym memberships okay so the parties by stipulation may agree that rights are not transmissible okay so that's it for the nature and effect of obligations okay after this we can proceed to the kinds of obligations so I hope you have picked up a thing or two and I hope to see you again soon okay bye