Practice question
Luz is entitled under a valid agreement to Omar’s delivery of a specified sculpture. In return, Omar is entitled to Luz’s agreed payment. A student says Luz must always be only a creditor and Omar only a debtor throughout the transaction. What is the proper analysis?
- The student is correct because the first named party is always the creditor.
- The student is correct because a person cannot simultaneously owe and be owed different prestations.
- Each party’s status depends on the particular prestation: Luz is creditor for delivery and debtor for payment, with Omar holding the corresponding opposite roles.
- Neither party can be an obligee until a court issues a writ.
- The sculpture itself is the debtor and the money is the creditor.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, articles 1156–1159 and1423.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_167519_2015.html — Wellex Group v U-Land Airlines, GR 167519, January 14 2015, main opinion: prestation as required conduct.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.