Practice question
Fina and Gelo privately agree that Gelo will replace Fina as debtor to Hilda. Hilda receives their letter but expressly refuses substitution and does not release Fina. Gelo later becomes insolvent. Fina argues she was discharged by delegación and that Article 1295 protects her from revival. What is correct?
- Fina was released solely by her agreement with Gelo.
- Receipt of the letter necessarily equals creditor consent despite the express refusal.
- There was no effective substitutive novation without Hilda’s consent, so Fina cannot invoke the rules governing a discharged debtor to claim release.
- Gelo’s insolvency supplies the missing creditor consent retroactively.
- Article 1295 automatically extinguishes every debt proposed for substitution.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, articles 1293–1295.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/aug2023/gr_259469_2023.html — Aliguyon v Dummang, GR 259469, August 30 2023, main opinion: creditor consent and expromisión/delegación.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.