Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

2009 Jude owned a building which he had leased to several tenants. Without informing his tenants, Jude sold the building to Ildefonso. Thereafter, the latter notified all the tenants that he is the new owner of the building. Ildefonso ordered the tenants to vacate the premises within thirty (30) days from notice because he had other plans for the building. The tenants refused to vacate, insisting that they will only do so when the term of their lease shall have expired. Is Ildefonso bound to respect the lease contracts between Jude and his tenants? Explain your answer. Yes, he is bound to respect the lease because he had actual knowledge of the existence of lease. The Civil Code provides that the purchaser of piece of land which is under lease that is not recorded in the Registry of Property may terminate the lease save in cases when there is stipulation to the contrary or when the purchaser knows of the existence of the lease. ( Article 1676 NCC) Moreover, well-settled rule that actual knowledge of the purchaser of the contract is equivalent to registration on his part.

II

Rommels private car, while being driven by the regular family driver, Amado, hits a pedestrian causing the latters death. Rommel is not in the car when the incident happened. Q a) Is Rommel liable for damages to the heirs of the deceased? Explain. Would your answer be the same if Rommel was in the car at the time of the accident? Explain. (2%) Yes, by virtue of vicarious liability or the master-servant rule. But, here A(a) Rommel can seek for reimbursement A(b) Yes, by virtue of solidary liability Sarah had a deposit in a savings account with Filipino Universal Bank in the amount of five million pesos (P5,000,000.00). To buy a new car, she obtained a loan from the same bank in the amount of P1,200,000.00, payable in twelve monthly installments. Sarah issued in favor of the bank post-dated checks, each in the amount of P100,000.00, to cover the twelve monthly installment payments. On the third, fourth and fifth months, the corresponding checks bounced. The bank then declared the whole obligation due, and proceeded to deduct the amount of one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) from Sarahs deposit after notice to her that this is a form of compensation allowed by law. Is the bank correct? Explain. Yes, the bank is correct. Under the law, when a person deposited money from the bank, creditor/debtor relationship was created. Since the bank and Sarah in the given case was creditor and debtor with respect to each other and considering that the debt was already due and demandable, compensation takes place. Rosario obtained a loan of P100,000.00 from Jennifer, and pledged her diamond ring. The contract signed by the parties stipulated that if Rosario is unable to redeem the ring on due date, she will execute a document in favor of Jennifer providing that the ring shall automatically be considered full payment of the loan. a) Is the contract valid? Explain. b) Will your answer to a) be the same if the contract stipulates that upon
Page 1 of 17

Q III

IV

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

failure of Rosario to redeem the ring on due date, Jennifer may immediately sell the ring and appropriate the entire proceeds thereof for herself as full payment of the loan? Reasons. Yes, This is not considered Pactum Commissorium since the debtor will have to A(a) execute a document before the ownership is to be transferred. The transfer of ownership in this case is not automatic. Yes, the answer will still be the same. It is not considered Pactum Commissorium. There is only Pactum Commissorium if the ownership will A(b) automatically be transferred in the event of default. In this case, the property must be sold and the proceeds will be applied to the loan. Any excess will be returned to the debtor. 2008 Eduardo was granted a loan by XYZ Bank for the purpose of improving a building which XYZ leased from him. Eduardo, executed the promissory note (PN) in favor of the bank, with his friend Recardo as co-signatory. In the PN, they both acknowledged that they are individually and collectively liable and waived the need for prior demand. To secure the PN, Recardo executed a real estate mortgage on his own property. When Eduardo defaulted on the PN, XYZ stopped payment of rentals on the building on the ground that legal compensation had set in. Since there was still a balance due on the PN after applying the rentals, XYZ foreclosed the real estate mortgage over Recardos property. Recardo opposed the foreclosure on the ground that he is only a co-signatory; that no demand was made upon him for payment, and assuming he is liable, his liability should not go beyond half the balance of the loan. Further, Recardo said that when the bank invoked compensation between the rentals and the amount of the loan, it amounted to a new contract or novation, and had the effect of extinguishing the security since he did not give his consent (as owner of the property under the real estate mortgage) thereto. a) Can XYZ Bank validly assert legal compensation? b) Can Recardos property be foreclosed to pay the full balance of the loan? c) Does Recardo have basis under the Civil Code for claiming that the original contract was novated? Yes, XYZ Bank can validly assert legal compensation. In the present case, all of the elements of legal compensation are present: 1) XYZ Bank is the creditor of Eduardo while Eduardo is the lessor of XYZ Bank; 2) both debts consist in a sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they may be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; 3) the two debts be due; 4) they be liquidated and demandable; and 5) over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor (Art. 1279, Civil Code)

A(a)

Yes, Ricardos property can be foreclosed to pay the full balance of the loan because when he signed as a co-signatory in the promissory note, he acknowledged A(b) he is solidarily liable with Eduardo. In solidary obligations, a creditor has the right to demand full payment of the obligation from any of the solidary debtors. (Art. 1207, Civil Code)

Page 2 of 17

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

No, Ricardo has no basis for claiming novation of the original contract when the bank invoked compensation because there was simply a partial compensation (Art. 1290, Civil Code) and this would not bar the bank from recovering the remaining balance of the obligation.

A(c)

II

Dux leased his house to Iris for a period of 2 years, at the rate of P25,000.00 monthly, payable annually in advance. The contract stipulated that it may be renewed for another 2-year period upon mutual agreement of the parties. The contract also granted Iris the right of first refusal to purchase the property at any time during the lease, if Dux decides to sell the property at the same price that the property is offered for sale to a third party. Twenty-three months after execution of the lease contract, Dux sold the house to his mother for P2 million. Iris claimed Q that the sale was a breach of her right of first refusal. Dux said there was no breach because the property was sold to his mother who is not a third party. Iris filed an action to rescind the sale and to compel Dux to sell the property to her at the same price. Alternatively, she asked the court to extend the lease for another 2 years on the same terms. a) Can Iris seek rescission of the sale of the property to Duxs mother? b) Will the alternative prayer for extension of the lease prosper? Yes, because the right of first refusal is included in the contract signed by the parties. Only if the lessee failed to exercise the right of first refusal could the lessor lawfully sell the subject property to others, under no less than the same terms and conditions previously offered to the lessee. Granting that the mother is not a third A(a) party, this would make her privy to the agreement of Dux and Iris, hence aware of the right of first refusal. This makes the mother a buyer in bad faith, hence giving more ground for rescission of the sale to her (Equatorial v. Mayfair Theater, 21 November 1996). No, the contract stipulated that it may be renewed for another 2-year period upon mutual agreement of the parties. Contracts are binding between the parties; A(b) validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of the parties (Art. 1308, Civil Code). Felipe borrowed $100 from Gustavo in 1998, when the Phil P US $ exchange rate was P56 US$1. On March 1, 2008, Felipe tendered to Gustavo a cashiers check in the amount of P4,135 in payment of his US $ 100 debt, based on the Phil P US $ exchange rate at that time. Gustavo accepted the check, but forgot to deposit it until Sept. 12, 2008. His bank refused to accept the check because it had become stale. Gustavo now wants Felipe to pay him in cash the amount of P5,600. Claiming that the previous payment was not in legal tender, and that there has been extraordinary deflation since 1998, and therefore, Felipe should pay him the value of the debt at the time it was incurred. Felipe refused to pay him again, claiming that Gustavo is estopped from raising the issue of legal tender, having accepted the check in March, and that it was Gustavos negligence in not depositing the check immediately that caused the check to become stale. a) Can Gustavo now raise the issue that the cashiers check is not legal tender? b) Can Felipe validly refuse to pay Gustavo again? c) Can Felipe compel Gustavo to receive US$100 instead?

III

Page 3 of 17

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

No. Gustavo previously accepted a check as payment. It was his fault why the A(a) check became stale. He is now estopped from raising the issue that a cashiers check is not legal tender. Yes, Felipe can refuse to pay Gustavo, who allowed the check to become stale. Although a check is not legal tender (Belisario v. Natividad, 60 Phil 156), there are instances when a check produces the effects of payment, for example: a) when A(b) the creditor is in estoppel or he had previously promised he would accept a check, b) when the check has lost its value because of the fault of the creditor (Art. 1249 (par. 2)), as when he has unreasonably delayed in presenting the check for payment (PNB v. Seeto, 13 August 1952) Felipe cannot compel Gustavo to receive US $ 100 because under R.A. 529, payment of loans should be in Philippine currency at the rate of exchange prevailing A(c) at the time of the stipulated date of payment. Felipe could only compel Gustavo to receive US $ 100 if they stipulated that the obligation be paid with foreign currency (R.A. 4100) AB Corp. entered into a contract with XY Corp. whereby the former agreed to construct the research and laboratory facilities of the latter. Under the terms of the contract, AB Corp. agreed to complete the facility in 18 months, at the total contract price of P10 million. XY Corp. paid 50% of the total contract price, the balance to be paid upon completion of the work. The work started immediately, but AB Corp. later experienced work slippage because of labor unrest in his company. AB Corp.s employees claimed that they are not being paid on time; hence, the work slowdown. As of the 17th month, work was only 45% completed. AB Corp. asked for extension of time, claiming that its labor problems is a case of fortuitous event, but this was denied by XY Corp. When it became certain that the construction could not be finished on time, XY Corp. sent written notice canceling the contract, and requiring AB Corp. to immediately vacate the premises. a) Can the labor unrest be considered a fortuitous event? b) Can XY Corp. unilaterally and immediately cancel the contract? c) Must AB Corp. return the 50% downpayment?

IV

No. The labor unrest cannot be considered a fortuitous event under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code. A fortuitous event should occur independent of the will of the A(a) debtor or without his participation or aggravation. As mentioned in the facts, the labor unrest of the employees was caused by AB Corp.s failure to pay its employees on time. No. XY Corp. cannot unilaterally and immediately cancel the contract. In the A(b) absence of any stipulation for automatic rescission, rescission must be judicial (Art. 1191, Civil Code). AB Corp. need not return the 50% downpayment because 45% of the work was A(c) already completed, otherwise, XY Corp. would be unjustly enriching itself at the expense of AB Corp. 2007 I Q A Illegal and impossible conditions in a simple donation v. illegal and impossible conditions in an onerous donation. Illegal and impossible conditions in a simple donation are considered as not
Page 4 of 17

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

written. Such conditions shall, therefore, be disregarded but the donation remains valid (Article 727, NCC). On the other hand, illegal and impossible conditions imposed in an onerous donation shall annul the donation (Article 1183, NCC). This is so, because onerous donations are governed by the law on contracts. Q What are obligations without an agreement? Give five examples of situations giving rise to this type of obligation Obligations without an agreement are obligations that do not arise from contract such as those arising from: a) delicts; b) quasi-delicts; c) solution indebiti; d) negotiorum gestio; and e) all other obligations arising from law. The parties to a bailment are the: a.) bailor; b.) bailee; c.) comodatario; d.) all of the above; e.) letters a and b e. (letters a and b) A deposit made in compliance with a legal obligation is: a.) an extrajudicial deposit; b.) a voluntary deposit; c.) a necessary deposit; d.) a deposit with a warehouseman; e.) letters a and b c. (necessary deposit) A contract of antichresis is always: a.) a written contract; b.) a contract with a stipulation that the debt will be paid through receipt of the fruits of an immovable; c.) involves the payment of interests, if owing; d.) all of the above; e.) letters a and b d (all of the above) An assignee in a proceeding under the insolvency Law does not have the duty of: a.) suing to recover the properties of the estate of the insolvent debtor; b.) selling property of the insolvent debtor; c.) ensuring that a debtor corporation operate the business efficiently and effectively while the proceedings are pending; d.) collecting and discharging debts owned to the insolvent debtor c. ensuring that a debtor corporation operate the business efficiently and effectively while the proceedings are pending

II A

III

IV

Q VI

Page 5 of 17

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

In order to obtain approval of the proposed settlement of the debtor in an insolvency proceeding: a.) the court must initiate the proposal; b.) 2/3 of the number of creditors should agree to the settlement; c.) 3/5 of the number of creditors should agree to the settlement; d.) 1/3 of the total debts must be represented by the approving creditors; e.) letters a and b None of the choices is the correct answer. In order to obtain approval of the proposed settlement, 2/3 of the number of creditors representing 3/5 of the total liabilities must approve the same. 2006 Spouses Biong and Linda wanted to sell their house. They found a prospective buyer, Ray. Linda negotiated with Ray for the sale of the property. They agreed on a fair price of P2 Million. Ray sent Linda a letter confirming his intention to buy the property. Later, another couple, Bernie and Elena, offered a similar house at a lower price of P1.5 Million. But Ray insisted on buying the house of Biong and Linda for sentimental reason. Ray prepared a deed of sale to be signed by the couple and a managers check for P2 Million. After receiving the P2 Million, Biong signed the Q deed of sale. However, Linda was not able to sign it because she was abroad. On her return, she refused to sign the document saying she changed her mind. Linda filed suit for nullification of the deed of sale and for moral and exemplary damages against Ray. a) Will the suit prosper? Explain. b) Does Ray have any cause of action against Biong and Linda? Can he also recover damages from the spouses? Explain. The suit will prosper. The sale was void because Linda did not give her written consent to the sale. In Jader-Manalo v. Camaisa, 374 SCRA 498 (2002), the Supreme Court has ruled that the sale of conjugal property is void if both spouses have not given their written consent to it and even if the spouse who did not sign the Deed of Sale participated in the negotiation of the contract. In Abalos v. Makatangay, 439 A(a) SCRA 649, the Supreme Court even held that for the sale to be valid, the signatures of the spouses, to signify their written consent, must be on the same document. In this case, Linda, although she was the one who negotiated the sale, did not give her written consent to the sale. Hence, the sale is void. However, Linda will not be entitled to damages because Rey is not in any way in bad faith. Yes, Rey has a cause of action against Linda and Biong for the return of the P2,000,000.00 he paid for the property. He may recover damages from the A(b) spouses, if it can be proven that they were in bad faith in backing out from the contract, as this is an act contrary to morals and good customs under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Alberto and Janine migrated to the United States of America, leaving behind their 4 children, one of whom is Manny. They own a duplex apartment and allowed Manny to live in one of the units. While in the United States, Alberto died. His widow and all his children executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Albertos estate wherein the 2-door apartment was assigned by all the children to their mother, Janine. Subsequently, she sold the property to George. The latter required Manny
Page 6 of 17

Q VII

II

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

to sign a prepared Lease Contract so that he and his family could continue occupying the unit. Manny refused to sign the contract alleging that his parents allowed him and his family to continue occupying the premises. If you were Georges counsel, what legal steps will you take? Explain. As Georges counsel, I will give Manny a written demand to vacate within a definite period, say fifteen days. After the lapse of the fifteen day period I will file for an action for Unlawful Detainer to recover the possession of the apartment from Manny. Mannys occupation of the premises was by mere tolerance of his parents. When all the co-heirs/co-owners assigned the two-door apartment to Janine in the extra-judicial partition, Janine became the sole owner of the same. He continued to occupy it under the same familial arrangement. Upon the sale of the property to George, Mannys lawful occupation of the property was terminated and Mannys refusal to sign the lease contract and to vacate the premises after the period to vacate lapsed made his occupation unlawful, hence, entitling George to the remedy of Unlawful Detainer. Spouses Alfredo and Racquel were active members of a religious congregation. They donated a parcel of land in favor to that congregation in a duly notarized Deed of Donation subject to the condition that the Minister shall construct thereon a place or worship within 1 year from the acceptance of the donation. In an affidavit he executed in behalf of the congregation, the Minister accepted the donation. The Deed of Donation was registered with Registry of Deeds. However, instead of constructing a place of worship, the minister constructed a bungalow on the property he used as his residence. Disappointed with the Minister, the spouses revoked the donation and demanded that he vacate the premises immediately. But the Minister refused to leave, claiming that aside from using the bungalow as his residence, he is also using it as a place of worship on special occasions. Under the circumstances, can Alfredo and Racquel evict the Minister and recover possession of the property. If you were the couples counsel, what action will you take to protect the interest of your clients? As counsel for the couple, I may file an action for reconveyance of the property on the ground that the donation was not perfected. It was not perfected because although it was made in a public document and was accepted by the donee in a separate public document, the donee failed to notify the donor of such acceptance in an authentic form before the donation was revoke under article 729 of the Civil Code. Such notification was necessary for the donation to become valid and binding. 2005 Marvin offered to construct the house of Carlos for a very reasonable price of P900,000, giving the latter 10 days within which to accept or reject the offer. On the fifth day, before Carlos could make up his mind, Marvin withdrew his offer. a) What is the effect of the withdrawal of Marvins Offer? b) Will your answer be the same if Carlos paid Marvin P10,000.00 as consideration for that option? Explain. c) Supposing that Carlos accepted the offer before Marvin could communicate his withdrawal thereof? Discuss the legal consequences.
Page 7 of 17

III

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

The withdrawal of Marvins offer will cause the offer to cease in law. Hence, even if subsequently accepted, there could be no concurrence of the offer and the acceptance. In the absence of concurrence of offer and acceptance, there can be no consent. Without consent, there is no perfected contract for the construction of the house of Carlos. Article 1318 of the Civil Code provides that there can be no contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) consent of the parties; (2) object A(a) certain which is subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the obligation. Marvin will not be liable to pay Carlos any damages for withdrawing the offer before the lapse of the period granted. In this case, no consideration was given by Carlos for the option given, thus there is no perfected contract of option for lack of cause of obligation. Marvin cannot be held to have breached the contract. Thus he cannot be held liable for damages. My answer will be the same as to the perfection of the contract for the construction of the house of Carlos. No perfected contract arises because of lack of consent. With the withdrawal of the offer, there could be no concurrence of offer and acceptance. My answer will not be the same as to damages. Marvin will be liable for A(b) damages for breach of contract of option. With the payment of the consideration for the option given, and with the consent of the parties and the object of contract being present, a perfected contract of option was created. Under Art. 1170 of the Civil Code, those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of contravention thereof, as in this case, when Marvin did not give Carlos the agreed period of ten days, are liable for damages. A contract to construct the house of Carlos is perfected. Contracts are perfected by mere consent manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. Under Article 1315 of the Civil Code, Carlos and Marvin are bound to fulfil A(c) what has been expressly stipulated and all consequences thereof. Under Article 1167, if Marvin would refuse to construct the house, Carlos is entitled to have construction done by a third person at the expense of Marvin. Marvin in that case will be liable for damages under Article 1170. TX filed a suit for ejectment against BD for non-payment of condominium rentals amounting to P150,000. During the pendency of the case, BD offered and TX accepted the full amount due as rentals from BD, who then filed a motion to dismiss the ejectment suit on the ground that the action is already extinguished. Is BDs contention correct? Why or why not? Reason. BD's contention is not correct. TX can still maintain the suit for ejectment. The acceptance by the lessor of the payment by the lessee of the rentals in arrears even during the pendency of the ejectment case does not constitute a waiver or abandonment of the ejectment case. (Spouses Clutario v. CA, 216 SCRA 341 [1992]).
Bernie bought on installment a residential subdivision lot from DEVLAND. After having faithfully paid the installments for 48 months, Bernie discovered that DEVLAND had failed to develop the subdivision in accordance with the approved plans and specifications within the time frame in the plan. He thus wrote a letter to DEVLAND informing it that he was stopping payment. Consequently, DEVLAND cancelled the sale and wrote Bernie, informing him that his payments are forfeited in its favor.

Q II A

III

Page 8 of 17

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

a) Was the action of DEVLAND proper? Explain. b) Discuss the rights of Bernie under the circumstances. c) Supposing DEVLAND had fully developed the subdivision but Bernie failed to pay further installments after 4 years due to business reverses. Discuss the rights and obligations of the parties. No, the action of DEVLAND is not proper. Under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 957, otherwise known as the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protection Decree, non-payment of amortizations by the buyer is justified if nonpayment is due to the failure of the subdivision owner to develop the subdivision project according to the approved plans and within the limit for complying. (Eugenio v. Drilon, G.R. No. 109404, January 22, 1996)

A(a)

Under P.D. No. 957, a cancellation option is available to Bernie. If Bernie opts to cancel the contract, DEVLAND must reimburse Bernie the total amount paid and A(b) the amortizations interest, excluding delinquency interest, plus interest at legal rate. (Eugenio v. Drilon, G.R. No. 109404, January 22, 1996) In this case, pursuant to Section 24 of P.D. No. 957, R.A. No. 6552 otherwise known as the Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act, shall govern. Under Section 3 thereof, Bernie is entitled: 1) to pay without additional interest the unpaid installments due within a grace period of four (4) months or one month for every year of installment paid; 2) if the contract is cancelled, Bernie is entitled to the refund of the cash surrender value equal to 50% of the total payments made. DEVLAND on the other hand has the right to cancel the contract after 30 days from receipt by Bernie of notice of cancellation. DEVLAND is however obliged to refund to Bernie 50% of the total payments made. (Rillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125347, June 19,1997) Before he left for Riyadh to work as a mechanic, Pedro work his adventure van with Tito, with the understanding that the latter could use it for one year for his personal or family use while Pedro works in Riyadh. He did not tell to Tito that the brakes of the van were faulty. Tito had the van tuned up and the brakes repaired. He spent a total amount of P15, 0000.00. After using the vehicle for two weeks, Tito discovered that it consumed too much fuel. To make up for the expenses, he leased it to Annabelle. Two months later, Pedro returned to the Philippines and asked Tito to return the van. Unfortunately while being driven by Tito, the van was accidentally damaged by a cargo truck without his fault. a) Who shall bear the P15, 000.00 spent for the repair of the van? b) Who shall bear for the costs for the vans fuel, oil and other materials while it was with Tito? Explain. c) Does Pedro have the right to retrieve the van even before the lapse of one year? d) Who shall bear the expenses for the accidental damage caused by the cargo truck, granting that the truck driver and truck owner are insolvent? Explain. The contract between Tito and Pedro is one of commodatum. Of the P15, 000.00 spent, Pedro, the bailor, shall bear the expenses for the repair of the faulty brakes, they being extraordinary expenses incurred due to the non-disclosure by the bailor of the defect or fault; Tito on the other hand, shall shoulder the part of
Page 9 of 17

A(c)

IV

A(a)

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

the P15, 000.00 spent for the tune-up, said expense being ordinary for the use and preservation of the van. The costs for the fuel and other materials are considered ordinary expenses, A(b) and consequently Tito, the bailee, shall shoulder them. No, Pedro cannot demand the return of the van until the expiration of the oneA(c) year period stipulated. However, if in the meantime he should have urgent need of the van, he may demand its return or temporary use. Both Tito and Pedro shall bear equally the costs of the extraordinary expenses, A(d) having been incurred in the occasion of actual use of the van by Tito, the bailee, even though he acted without fault. 2004 Q Distinguish briefly but clearly between Civil Obligation and Natural Obligation Civil obligation is a juridical necessity to give to do or not to do. It gives a creditor the legal right to compel by an action in court the performance of such obligation. A natural obligation is based on equity and natural law. There is no legal right to compel performance thereof but if the debtor voluntarily pays it, he cannot recover what was paid. Distinguish briefly but clearly between Inexistent contracts and annullable contracts INEXISTENT CONTRACTS are considered as not having been entered into and, therefore, void ob initio. They do not create any obligation and cannot be ratified or validated, as there is no agreement to ratify or validate. On the other hand, ANNULLABLE or VOIDABLE CONTRACTS are valid until invalidated by the court but may be ratified. In inexistent contracts, one or more requisites of a valid contract are absent. In anullable contracts, all the elements of a contract are present except that the consent of one of the contracting parties was vitiated or one of them has no capacity to give consent. DT and MT were prominent members of the frequent travelers club of FX Airlines. In Hong Kong, the couples were assigned seats in Business Class for which they had bought tickets. On checking in, however, they were told that they were upgraded by computer to First Class for the flight to Manila because the business section was overbooked. Both refused to transfer despite better seats, food, beverage and other services in First Class. They said they had guests in Business Class they should attend to. They felt humiliated, embarrassed and vexed, however, when the stewardess allegedly threatened to offload them if they did not avail the upgrade. Thus they gave in, but during the transfer of luggage DT suffered pain in his arm and wrist. After arrival in Manila, they demanded an apology from FXs management as well as indemnity payment. When none was forthcoming, they sued the airline for a million pesos in damages. Is the airline liable for actual and moral damages? Why or why not? Explain briefly. FX Airlines committed breach of contract when it upgraded DT and MT, over their objections, to First Class because they had contracted for Business Class passenger. However, although there is a breach of contract, DT and MT are entitled to actual damages only for such pecuniary losses suffered by them as a result of
Page 10 of 17

II

Q III

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

such breach. There seems to be no showing that they incurred such pecuniary loss. There is no showing that the pain in DTs arm and wrist resulted directly from the carriers acts complained of. Hence they are not entitled to actual damages. Moreover, DT could have avoided the alleged injury by requesting the airline staff to do the luggage transfer as a matter of duty on their part. There is also no basis to award moral damages for such breach of contract because the facts of the problem do not show bad faith or fraud on the part of the airline. However, they may recover moral damages if the cause of action is based on Article 21 of the Civil Code for the humiliation and embarrassment they felt when the stewardess threatened to offload them if they did not avail of the upgrade. CX executed a special power of attorney authorizing DY to secure a loan from any bank and to mortgage his property covered by the owners certificate of title. In securing a loan from Mbank, DY did not specify that he was acting for CX in the transaction with said bank. Is CX liable for the bank? Why or why not? Justify your answer. While as a general rule the principal is not liable for the contract entered into by his agent in case the agent acted in his own name without disclosing his principal, such rule does not apply if the contract involves a thing belonging to the principal. In such case, the principal is liable. The contract is deemed made on his behalf. DPO went to a store to buy a pack of cigarettes worth P225.00 only. He gave the vendor, RRA, a P500 peso bill. The vendor gave him the pack plus P375. 00 change. Was there a discount, an oversight, or an error in the amount given? What would be DPOs duty, if any, in case of an excess in the amount of change given by the vendor? How is the situational relationship between DPO and RRA denominated? Explain. There was error in the amount of change given by RRA. This is a case of solutio indebiti in that DPO received something that is not due him. He has the obligation to return the P100. 00; otherwise, he will unjustly enrich himself at the expense of RRA. OJ was employed as professional driver of MM Transit bus owned by Mr. BT. In the course of his work, OJ hit a pedestrian who was seriously injured and later died in the hospital as a result of the accident. The victims heirs sued the driver and the owner of the bus for damages. Is there a presumption in this case that Mr. BT, the owner, had been negligent? If so, is the presumption absolute or no? Explain. Yes, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. However, such presumption is rebuttable. The liability of the employer cease when they prove that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family. Likewise, if the driver is charged and convicted in a criminal case for criminal negligence, BT is subsidiarily liable for the damages arising from the criminal act.
Page 11 of 17

Q IV A

Q V

VI

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

DON, an American businessman, secured parental consent for the employment of five minors to play certain roles in two movies he has producing at home in Makati. They work at odd hours of the day and night, but always accompanied by parents or other adults. The producers paid the children talent fees at rates better than adult wages. But the social worker, DEB, reported to OSWD that these children often missed going to school. They sometimes drank wine, aside from being exposed to drugs. In some scenes, they were filmed naked or in revealing costumes. In his defense, DON contended all these were part of artistic freedom and cultural creativity. None of the parents complained, said DON. He also said they signed a contract containing a waiver of their right to file any complaint in any office or tribunal concerning the working conditions of their children acting in the movies. Is the waiver valid and binding? Why or why not? Explain. The waiver is not valid. Although the contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, they may not do so if such are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy (Art. 1306, Civil Code). The parents waiver to file a complaint concerning the working conditions of their children acting in the movies is in violation of the Family Code and the Labor laws. Thus, the waiver is invalid and not binding. The Child Labor Law is a mandatory and prohibitory law and the rights of the child cannot be waived as it is contrary to law and public policy.

VII

Mr. ZY lost 100,000 in a card game called Russian poker, but he had no more cash to pay in full the winner at the time the session ended. He promised to pay PX, the winners thereafter. But he failed to do so despite the lapse of two months, so PX filed in court a suit to collect the amount of P50,000 that he won but remain Q unpaid. a) Will the collection suit against ZY prosper? b) Could Mrs. ZY in turn file a suit against PX to recover the P100,000 that her husband lost? The suit by PX to collect the balance of what he won from ZY will not prosper. VIII Under Article 2014 of the Civil Code, no action can be maintained by the winner for A(a) the collection of what he has won in a game of chance. Although poker may depend in part on ability, it is fundamentally a game of chance. If the money paid by ZY to PX was conjugal or community property, the wife of ZY could sue to recover it because Article 117(7) of the Family Code provides that losses in gambling or betting are borne exclusively by the loser-spouse. Hence, A(b) conjugal or community funds may not be used to pay for such losses. If the money were exclusive property of ZY, his wife may also sue to recover it under Article 2016 of the Civil Code if she and the family needed the money for support. 2003 In 1950, Dr. Alba donated a parcel of land to Central University on condition that the latter must establish a medical college on the land to be named after him. In the year 2000, the heirs of Dr. Alba filed an action to annul the donation and for the reconveyance of the property donated to them for the failure, after 50 years, of the University to establish on the property a medical school named after their father. The University opposed the action on the ground of prescription and also
Page 12 of 17

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

because it had not used the property for some purpose other than that stated in the donation. Should the opposition of the university to the action of Dr. Albas heirs be sustained? Explain. The donation may not as yet be revoked. The establishment of a medical college is not a resolutory or suspensive condition but a charge, obligation, or a mode. The non-compliance of the with charge or mode will give the donor the right to revoke the donation within four (4) years from the time the charge by specific performance within ten (10) years from the time the cause of action accrued. Inasmuch as the time to establish the medical college has not been fixed in the Deed of Donation, the donee is not yet in default in his obligation until the period is fixed by order of the court under Article 1197 of the New Civil Code. Since the period has not been fixed as yet, the donee is not yet in default, and therefore the donor has no cause of action to revoke the donation.

II

Are the following obligations valid, why, and if they are valid, when is the obligation demandable in each case? a) If the debtor promises to pay as soon as he has the means to pay. Q b) If the debtor promises to pay when he likes; c) If the debtor promises to pay when he becomes a lawyer; d) If the debtor promises to pay if his son, who is sick with cancer, does not die within one year. The obligation is valid. It is an obligation subject to an indefinite period because the debtor binds himself to pay when his means permit him to do so (Article 1180, NCC). When the creditor knows that the debtor already has the A(a) means to pay, he must file an action in court to fix the period, and when the definite period as set by the court arrives, the obligation to pay becomes demandable (Article 1197, NCC). The obligation to pay when he likes is a suspensive condition the fulfillment A(b) of which is subject to the sole will of the debtor and, therefore the conditional obligation is void. (Article 1182, NCC). The obligation is valid. It is subject to a suspensive condition, i.e. the future and uncertain event of his becoming a lawyer. The performance of this obligation A(c) does not depend solely on the will of the debtor but also on other factors outside the debtors control. The obligation is valid. The death of the son of cancer within one year is made A(d) a negative suspensive condition to his making the payment. The obligation is demandable if the son does not die within one year (Article 1185, NCC). A,B,C,D, and E made themselves solidarity indebted to X for the amount of P50,000.00. When X demanded payment from A, the latter refused to pay on the following grounds. a) B is only 16 years old. b) C has already been condoned by X c) D is insolvent. d) E was given by X an extension of 6 months without the consent of the other four co-debtors. State the effect of each of the above defenses put up by A on his obligation to pay X, if such defenses are found to be true.

III

Page 13 of 17

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

A may avail the minority of B as a defense, but only for Bs share of P A(a) 10,000.00. A solidary debtor may avail himself of any defense which personally belongs to a solidary codebtor, but only as to the share of that co-debtor. A may avail of the condonation by X of Cs share of P 10, 000.00. A solidary debtor may, in actions filed by the creditor, avail himself of all defenses which are derived from the nature of the obligation and of those which are personal to him or A(b) pertain to his own share. With respect to those which personally belong to others, he may avail himself thereof only as regards that part of the debt for which the latter are responsible. (Article 1222, NCC). A may not interpose the defense of insolvency of D as a defense. Applying the principle of mutual guaranty among solidary debtors, A guaranteed the payment of A(c) Ds share and of all the other co-debtors. Hence, A cannot avail of the defense of Ds insolvency. The extension of six (6) months given by X to E may be availed of by A as a A(d) partial defense but only for the share of E, there is no novation of the obligation but only an act of liberality granted to E alone. X sold a parcel of land to Y on 01 January 2002, payment and delivery to be made on 01 February 2002. It was stipulated that if payment were not to be made by Y on 01 February 2002, the sale between the parties would automatically be Q rescinded. Y failed to pay on 01 February 2002, but offered to pay three days later, which payment X refused to accept, claiming that their contract of sale had already been rescinded. Is Xs contention correct? Why? This is a contract to sell and not a contract of absolute sale, since as there has been no delivery of the land. The seller has two alternative remedies: (1) specific A performance or (2) rescission or resolution under Article 1191 of the New Civil Code. In both remedies, damages are due because of default. As a result of a collision between a taxicab owned by A and another taxicab owned by B, X, a passenger of the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal action against both drivers. a) Is it necessary for X to reserve his right to institute a civil action for damages Q against both taxicab owners before he can file a civil action for damages against them? Why? b) May both taxicab owners raise the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of their drivers to be absolved from liability for damages to X? Why? It depends. If the separate civil action is to recover damages arising from the A(a) criminal act, reservation is necessary. If the civil action against the taxicab owners is based on culpa contractual, or on quasi-delict, there is no need for reservation. It depends. If the civil action is based on quasi-delict, the taxicab owners may raise the defense of diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and A(b) supervision of the driver; if the action is based on culpa contractual or civil liability arising from a crime, they cannot raise the defense. 2002 I Printado is engaged in the printing business. Suplico supplies printing paper to Printado pursuant to an order agreement under which Suplico binds himself to deliver the same volume of paper every month for a period of 18 months, with
Page 14 of 17

IV

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

Printado in turn agreeing to pay within 60 days after each delivery. Suplico has been faithfully delivering under the order agreement for 10 months but thereafter stopped doing so, because Printado has not made any payment at all. Printado has also a standing contract with publisher Publico for the printing of 10,000 volumes of school textbooks. Suplico was aware of said printing contract. After printing 1,000 volumes, Printado also fails to perform under its printing contract with Publico. Suplico sues Printado for the value of the unpaid deliveries under their order agreement. At the same time Publico sues Printado for damages for breach of contract with respect to their own printing agreement. In the suit filed by Suplico, Printado counters that: (a) Suplico cannot demand payment for deliveries made under their order agreement until Suplico has completed performance under said contract; (b) Suplico should pay damages for breach of contract; and (c) with Publico should be liable for Printados breach of his contract with Publico because the order agreement between Suplico and Printado was for the benefit of Publico. Are the contentions of Printado tenable? Explain your answers as to each contention. No, the contentions of Printado are untenable. Printado having failed to pay for the printing paper covered by the delivery invoices on time, Suplico has the right to cease making further delivery. And the latter did not violate the order agreement (Integrated Packaging Corporation v. Court of Appeals, (333 SCRA 170, G.R. No. 115117, June 8, [2000]). Suplico cannot be held liable for damages, for breach of contract, as it was not he who violated the order agreement, but Printado. Suplico cannot be held liable for Printados breach of contract with Publico. He is not a party to the agreement entered into by and between Printado and Publico. Theirs is not a stipulation pour atrui. [Aforesaid] Such contracts do could not affect third persons like Suplico because of the basic civil law principle of relativity of contracts which provides that contracts can only bind the parties who entered into it, and it cannot favor or prejudice a third person, even if he is aware of such contract and has acted with knowledge thereof. (Integrated Packaging Corporation v. CA, supra.) Stockton is a stockholder of Core Corp. He desires to sell his shares in Core Corp. In view of a court suit that Core Corp. has filed against him for damages in the amount of P 10 million, plus attorneys fees of P 1 million, as a result of statements published by Stockton which are allegedly defamatory because it was calculated to injure and damage the corporations reputation and goodwill. The articles of incorporation of Core Corp. provide for a right of first refusal in favor of the corporation. Accordingly, Stockton gave written notice to the corporation of his offer to sell his shares of P 10 million. The response of Core corp. was an acceptance of the offer in the exercise of its rights of first refusal, offering for the purpose payment in form of compensation or set-off against the amount of damages it is claiming against him, exclusive of the claim for attorneys fees. Stockton rejected the offer of the corporation, arguing that compensation between the value of the shares and the amount of damages demanded by the corporation cannot legally take effect. Is Stockton correct? Give reason for your answer. Stockton is correct. There is no right of compensation between his price of P10 million and Core Corp.s unliquidated claim for damages. In order that compensation may be proper, the two debts must be liquidated and demandable.
Page 15 of 17

Q II

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

The case for the P10 million damages being still pending in court, the corporation has as yet no claim which is due and demandable against Stockton. 2001 The sugar cane planters of Batangas entered into a long-term milling contract with the Central Azucarera de Don Pedro Inc. Ten years later, the Central assigned its rights to the said milling contract to a Taiwanese group which would take over the operations of the sugar mill. The planters filed an action to annul the said assignment on the ground that the Taiwanese group was not registered with the Board of Investments. Will the action prosper or not? Explain briefly. The action will prosper not on the ground invoked but on the ground that the farmers have not given their consent to the assignment. The milling contract imposes reciprocal obligations on the parties. The sugar central has the obligation to mill the sugar cane of the farmers while the latter have the obligation to deliver their sugar cane to the sugar central. As to the obligation to mill the sugar cane, the sugar central is a debtor of the farmers. In assigning its rights under the contract, the sugar central will also transfer to the Taiwanese its obligation to mill the sugar cane of the farmers. This will amount to a novation of the contract by substituting the debtor with a third party. Under Article 1293 of the Civil Code, such substitution cannot take effect without the consent of the creditor. The formers, who are creditors as far as the obligation to mill their sugar cane is concerned, may annul such assignment for not having given their consent thereto. On July 1, 1998, Brian leased an office space in a building for a period of five years at a rental rate of P1,000.00 a month. The contract of lease contained the proviso that "in case of inflation or devaluation of the Philippine peso, the monthly rental will automatically be increased or decreased depending on the devaluation or inflation of the peso to the dollar." Starting March 1, 2001, the lessor increased the rental to P2,000 a month, on the ground of inflation proven by the fact that the exchange rate of the Philippine peso to the dollar had increased from P25.00=$1.00 to P50.00=$1.00. Brian refused to pay the increased rate and an action for unlawful detainer was filed against him. Will the action prosper? Why? The unlawful detainer action will not prosper. Extraordinary inflation or deflation is defined as the sharp decrease in the purchasing power of the peso. It does not necessarily refer to the exchange rate of the peso to the dollar. Whether or not there exists an extraordinary inflation or deflation is for the courts to decide. There being no showing that the purchasing power of the peso had been reduced tremendously, there could be no inflation that would justify the increase in the amount of rental to be paid. Hence, Brian could refuse to pay the increased rate. Four foreign medical students rented the apartment of Thelma for a period of one year. After one semester, three of them returned to their home country and the fourth transferred to a boarding house. Thelma discovered that they left unpaid telephone bills in the total amount of P80,000.00. The lease contract provided that the lessees shall pay for the telephone services in the leased premises. Thelma demanded that the fourth student pay the entire amount of the unpaid telephone bills, but the latter is willing to pay only one fourth of it. Who is correct? Why? The fourth student is correct. His liability is only joint, hence, pro rata. There is solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states or when the law or
Page 16 of 17

II

Q III

Answers to BAR Questions 2000-2009 - Obligations and Contracts

nature of the obligation requires solidarity (Art. 1207, CC). The contract of lease in the problem does not, in any way, stipulate solidarity. 2000
Lolita was employed in a finance company. Because she could not account for the funds entrusted to her, she was charged with estafa and ordered arrested. In order to secure her release from jail, her parents executed a promissory note to pay the finance company the amount allegedly misappropriated by their daughter. The finance company then executed an affidavit of desistance which led to the withdrawal of the information against Lolita and her release from jail. The parents failed to comply with their promissory note and the finance company sued them for specific performance. Will the action prosper or not?

Q I

The action will prosper. The promissory note executed by Lolitas parents is valid and binding, the consideration being the extinguishment of Lolitas civil liability and not the stifling of the criminal prosecution.
Pedro promised to give his grandson a car if the latter will pass the bar examinations. When his grandson passed the said examinations, Pedro refused to give the car on the ground that the condition was a purely potestative one. Is he correct or not?

Q II A

No, he is not correct. First of all, the condition is not purely potestative, because it does not depend on the sole will of one of the parties. Secondly, even if it were, it would be valid because it depends on the sole will of the creditor (the donee) and not of the debtor (the donor).
Arturo borrowed P500,000.00 from his father. After he had paid P300,000.00, his father died. When the administrator of his father's estate requested payment of the balance of P200,000.00. Arturo replied that the same had been condoned by his father as evidenced by a notation at the back of his check payment for the P300,000.00 reading: "In full payment of the loan". Will this be a valid defense in an action for collection?

III A

It depends. If the notation "in full payment of the loan" was written by Arturo's father, there was an implied condonation of the balance that discharges the obligation. In such case, the notation is an act of the father from which condonation may be inferred. The condonation being implied, it need not comply with the formalities of a donation to be effective. The defense of full payment will, therefore, be valid. When, however, the notation was written by Arturo himself. It merely proves his intention in making that payment but in no way does it bind his father (Yam v. CA, G.R No. 104726. 11 February 1999). In such case, the notation was not the act of his father from which condonation may be inferred. There being no condonation at all the defense of full payment will not be valid.
Kristina brought her diamond ring to a jewelry shop for cleaning. The jewelry shop undertook to return the ring by February 1, 1999." When the said date arrived, the jewelry shop informed Kristina that the Job was not yet finished. They asked her to return five days later. On February 6, 1999, Kristina went to the shop to claim the ring, but she was informed that the same was stolen by a thief who entered the shop the night before. Kristina filed an action for damages against the jewelry shop which put up the defense of force majeure. Will the action prosper or not?

Q IV

The action will prosper. Since the defendant was already in default not having delivered the ring when delivery was demanded by plaintiff at due date, the defendant is liable for the loss of the thing and even when the loss was due to force majeure.

Page 17 of 17