Law On Obligation and Contracts
Law On Obligation and Contracts
Law On Obligation and Contracts
Rose F. Bonaobra
BSAIS-101A
PROBLEM 1:
A and B got married in 2015 and had an offspring a year after. On the fifth year of their marriage,
however, A and B had lots of misunderstandings that resulted to their separation. A then left the
conjugal home leaving their kid with his wife. Before B could file a petition for support, A voluntarily
offered his wife a monthly support of P50,000.00 that B willingly agreed to. Upon the prodding of B's
friends, B demanded a higher amount of support which amounts to P200,000.00, from A considering
that A has been receiving P400,000.00 a month. How much should A give as monthly support to B?
Why?
In problem 1, A could give 200,000 pesos to B if both parties agree, but based on the Article 194
and Article 201 of the family code the amount of support shall be in proportion to the resources
or means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipients. In correction to that case since, A
receive a 400,000 monthly it is proportionally in what B demanded which is 200,000 and
considering what the 6 years old kid needs particularly the dwelling, bills, clothing, medical
attendance/ expenses, education, foods, transportation etc. Just to think about the expenses of
the kid 50,000 is not enough for the exp0enses. And lastly A has the obligation to give the
necessity of his children and even to his partner even if they are separated.
PROBLEM 2:
A got into a vehicular accident with B due to the fault of the latter. The case could very well fall under
the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Physical Injuries in addition to suit for collection of
money, but A opted not to file a criminal case against B since such filing of criminal case against a
churchmate would mean his dismissal from their church. Instead, A chose to file a case for collection of
sums of money only based on their agreement that B will pay A for all the expenses incurred by reason
of the accident except for the repair of the car since B will directly pay the same to the A's insurance
company. However, B refused to pay A for his travel expenses and meal allowances when he travels to
the repair shop during his routine check-ups on the progress of the repair even after A insisted on B's
agreement to pay all the damages. Whose contention is correct? Is it B's refusal to pay A's expenses
during routine check-ups or is it A's insistence on B's liability to pay for the expenses incurred by A?
Explain your answer.
In problem 2, I think that B should shoulder the travel expenses and meal allowance of A
because B has an obligation to A that he/she agreed to pay all the damages. And as the result of
the accident A need to go travel to repair shop and have a meal allowance in consider to that it
has something to do with the incidents damages that B must also pay. And it also considers that
the foresaid damage which are the direct result of the accident, adequate and even the
reasonable must be consider in paying the damages that Bs obligation.