[G.R. No. 126712.

April 14, 1999]

LEONIDA C. QUINTO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
VITUG, J.:

DOCTRINE: There is no substitution of debtors since private complainant merely acquiesced to the
payment but did not give her consent to enter into a new contract. (See concepts of expromision
and delegacion)
NATURE: Appeal from decision of CA finding petitioner guilty of estafa
FACTS:
1.

2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

7.
8.

Petitioner Leonida Quinto received in trust several pieces of jewelry from Aurelia Cariaga
with a total value of P36, 000. These are: 1 set of marques with briliantitos valued at P17,
500. 1 solo ring (2 karats & 30 points) valued at P16, 000.00; 1 diamond ring (rosetas)
valued at P 2,500.00.
The purpose is selling the same on a commission basis and with the express obligation to
turn over the proceeds of sale thereof or to return the jewelry within 5 days if not sold.
The prosecution: claimed that petitioner asked for more time to sell the items but failed
to conclude any sale. After 6 months, Aurelia sent a demand letter for the return of the
items which petitioner ignored.
The defense: Leonida was into the business of buy and sell in jewelry. She used to buy
from a Mrs. Antonia Ilagan who introduced the petitioner to Aurelia.
1975: Aurelia and Leonida started to transact business in pieces off jewelry. The last
transaction Leonida had-with Mrs. Camacho involved a "marques" worth P16,000.00
and a ring valued at P4,000.00. Mrs. Camacho was not able to pay the due amount in
full and left a balance of P13,000.00. Leonida brought Mrs. Camacho to Aurelia who
agreed to allow Mrs. Camacho to pay the balance in instalments.
Proffered that petitioner had sold several pieces of jewelry for Aurelia, and it happened on
some occasions that the buyers were unable to pay in full.
When this happened, petitioner brought the buyers to meet Aurelia who agreed to accept
payment in installments. Petitioner claims that the contract between herself and Aurelia
was effectively novated when the latter agreed to accept payment in installments directly
from the buyers.
RTC, in its 25th January 1993 decision, found Leonida guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of estafa
Leonida interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals which affirmed, in its 27th September
1996 decision, the RTC's assailed judgment.

ISSUES: WON there was novation of the contract when the latter consented to receive payment on
installments directly from Mrs. Camacho and Mrs. Ramos.?
HELD: NO.
1. Novation is never presumed, and the animus novandi, whether totally or partially, must
appear by express agreement of the parties, or by their acts that are too clear and
unequivocal to be mistaken.
2. There are 2 ways which could indicate the presence of novation and thereby produce the
effect of extinguishing an obligation by another which substitutes the same. These are:
a. When novation has been explicitly stated and declared in unequivocal terms.
b. When the old and the new obligations are incompatible on every point.
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.
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. (see concepts: extinctive and modificatory novation)
3. The changes alluded to by petitioner consists only in the manner of payment.
There was really no substitution of debtors since private complainant merely
acquiesced to the payment but did not give her consent to enter into a new
contract.
4. The fact alone that the creditor receives guaranty or accepts payments from a
third party who has agreed to assume the obligation does not constitute an
extinctive novation absent an agreement that the first debtor shall be released
from responsibility.
DISPOSITON: Petition dismissed. CA Ddecision affirmed