Ong vs Bognalbal G.R. No 149140 On January 2, 1995, Architect Ernesto Bognalbal (E.B.

Bognalbal Construction) was hired by petitioner, Victoria Ong, for the construction of her boutique on a contract price of P200,000 but subject to change in respect to economic factors and change of order. The agreement was to complete the work within 45 days and payment shall be made every two weeks based on the accomplishment of work value. The project started on Jan. 19, 1995. Work Accomplished Jan 19-28, 1995 17.975% Billing petitioner paid P 35,950 petitioner paid P 69,300 petitioner paid P No payment P P 30,950 181,700

Jan 19 to Feb 15, 1995 34.65% Feb 16 to March 3, 1995 41,500 March 4-18 Work Total 20.63%

15.47% 88.85%

Petitioner wanted a change of order within 3 days from vinyl tiles to kenzo flooring on April 22, 1995. Kenzo flooring took time to construct because of the curing process and additional costs shall be incurred. The rushed work of kenzo flooring was not acceptable to petitioner Victoria Ong. She refused to pay the 4th billing. Demand of respondent Bognalbal for petitioner Ong to pay for the kenzo flooring was made on or before April 24, 1995 . Petitioner Victoria Ong didnt pay, respondent Bognalbal abandoned the kenzo flooring job on April 25, 1995. (Petitioner Ong hired another contractor, she incurred P 78,000 and additional damages, and the completion of the kenzo flooring was delayed for 82 days.) Issue: Is Bognalbal liable to pay? Ruling: MeTC ruled in favor of respondent Bognalbal. Petitioner Victoria Ong was made to pay. RTC ruled in favor petitioner Victoria Ong. MeTCs decision was reversed and set aside. CA (Petition for Review) ruled in favor of respondent Bognalbal. MeTCs decision was reinstated. SC (Petition for Certiorari is dismissed) ruled in favor of respondent

Bognalbal. MeTCs decision was affirmed. (Respondent Victoria Ong is liable pay.) Novation is never presumed. Unless it is clearly shown either by express agreement of the parties or by acts of equivalent import, defense will never be allowed. assuming that there was indeed a novation of the obligation of Petitioner Ong to pay the fourth billing so as to include as additional condition the completion of the Kenzo flooring, such new condition would, nevertheless, be deemed fulfilled. This is pursuant to Article 1186 of the Civil Code which provides: Article 1186. The condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment. (This could mean that the prevention of petitioner Ong of the fulfillment of the vinyl tiles, made the condition of the contract fulfilled, without due course to any of her change order.) (petitioner) Ong has not sufficiently proven the alleged contract novation Breach of contract was her [petitioner Ong] failure to pay what she was legally bound to pay under her contract with respondent Bognalbal. Payment, being the very consideration of the contract, is certainly not a mere casual or slight breach but a very substantial and fundamental breach as to defeat the object of the parties making the agreement, due to which rescission of the contract may be had (Ang vs. CA, 170 SCRA 286, 296).