Oblicon Teasers
Oblicon Teasers
Oblicon Teasers
D is obliged to deliver a specific cell phone to C at the latter’s residence on March 1, 2017.
On March 1, 2017, C waited at his residence for the delivery of the cell phone but said
cellphone was destroyed in a fire that razed the store of D.
a. D will be liable for damages to C.
b. D was already in default at the time of the loss of the cell phone.
c. D’s obligation is extinguished.
d. No demand was required to be made by C upon D for the latter to be in default because
a date was provided for the performance of D’s obligation.
P called ABC Travel Agency (ABC) to book him for a flight to Davao City on April 30, 2010 at 5:00
p.m. P informed ABC that he was the scheduled guest speaker at the Accounting Convention on
May 1, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. and that he had to be in Davao City in the evening of April 30 in time
for the convention. Per agreement, ABC would deliver the plane ticket at the Manila Domestic
Airport at 3:00 p.m. of April 30, at which time P would pay the cost of the plane ticket as has
been their usual arrangement since P was a regular customer of ABC. On April 30, P waited at
the airport at the time agreed upon but no representative of ABC came to deliver the plane
ticket. As a result, P missed his flight. P now sued ABC for damages, but the latter maintained
that it should not be liable because P never made any demand for the delivery of the plane
ticket.
a. ABC is correct; it is not liable because P should have made a demand for the delivery of the
ticket at the time agreed upon.
b. ABC is not correct; it was in default although no demand was made, and thus will be liable for
damages.
c. ABC is not liable for damages; P should have inquired whether there were other available
flight to Davao City at that time.
d. ABC is not liable for damages since P did not pay for the plane fare in advance.
D is obliged to deliver 5 bags of powder soap to C 7 days from their
agreement. On due date, D delivered 5 bags of powder soap mixed with
chalk. What is the status of the agreement between D and C?
* The agreement is valid. The fraud was committed during the
performance of the obligation and not during the agreement of the parties.
This is a case of incidental fraud (dolo incidente) not causal fraud (dolo
causante).
A, B, C and D, joint debtors are obliged to give X, Y, and Z, solidary creditors, P12,000. How much
may X collect from A?
* P 3,000. As a solidary creditor, X may collect the whole amount owed by the joint
debtor A.
A, B, C and D, solidary debtors, are obliged to give X, Y and Z, joint creditors, P12,000. How much
may X collect from A?
* P4,000. As a joint debtor X is entitled only to his proportionate share, and A being a
solidary debtor may be required to pay the said amount.
A, B, C and D, solidary debtors, are obliged to give X, Y and Z, solidary creditors, P12,000. How
much may X collect from A?
* P12,000. X being a solidarity creditor may ask for the payment of the whole amount in
behalf of his co-creditors subject to a responsibility of X to give the latter their corresponding
shares. Similarly, A as a solidary debtor may be required to pay the whole amount of the
obligation subject to reimbursement from his co-debtors.
A and B are indebted to X and Y for P10,000. A and B share in the debt in
the ratio of 1:3 while X and Y share in the credit in the ratio of 2:3.
a. How much may X collect from A if the debtors are joint debtors,
while the creditors are joint creditors?
* P1,000. The obligation is joint on both the debtor and
creditor, therefore there are as many debts (credits) as debtors (creditors).
COMPUTATION:
Proportionate Share of A:
¼ x P10,000 = P 2,500
COMPUTATION:
Proportionate Share of X in the credit:
2/5 x P10,000 = P 4,000
D owes C P10,000. T offers to pay D’s obligation and tells D that D need
not reimburse him. However, D does not give his consent to T’s offer not
to be reimbursed. C, nonetheless, accepts the payment from T. Was the
payment valid?
* The payment is valid insofar as C is concerned. The case is deemed
to be a donation, however to be constituted as such D’s consent is
necessary. (1238)
D obtained a loan of P10,000 from C who was in his right mind at
the time he granted the loan. On due date, D paid his obligation
of P10,000 to C who had since become insane. C lost P4,000 of
the amount he received and spent P6,000 for his food and other
necessary expenses. Was the obligation extinguished?
* The obligation is extinguished up to P6,000 only. Payment
of an obligation to an incapacitated person shall be valid when
the person has kept the thing delivered and only insofar as the
payment has been beneficial to him. (1241)
Assuming that D did not designate the debt to be paid when he
remitted the amount of P4,000 to C on May 31. C issued a receipt for
the payment he received from D but he did not also designate the debt
that was being paid. How would the payment be applied?
* The payment shall be applied to the debt due on May 22 since it
is the most onerous.
D obtained a loan of P500,000.00 from C. The loan is payable at the end of 10
years. Before the maturity of the loan, an extraordinary inflation supervened
causing the value of P500,000.00 to fall to P100,000.00 on the date of maturity.
At maturity, D will have to pay C:
a. 100,000
b. 500,000
c. 2,500,000.00
d. Some other amount
D obtained a loan of P200,000.00 from C. The loan is payable at the end of 5
years. Before the maturity of the loan, an extraordinary deflation supervened
causing the value of P200,000.00 to rise to P500,000.00 on the date of maturity.
At maturity, D will have to pay C:
a. 100,000
b. 500,000
c. 2,500,000.00
d. Some other amount
In case of extraordinary inflation and deflation of the Philippine currency
should supervene the basis of the value of the currency for payment shall
be the value of the currency at the time of the establishment of the
obligation. Unless there is a stipulation to the contrary (Art. 1250)
Refer to no. 21. Assume the same facts except that when C made the
assignment of his credit to X, C did not notify D about it. It was only on June
20 when X went to D to collect that D learned of the assignment. How much
may X collect from D?
* P2,000. The assignment is without knowledge of D, therefore the
latter may set up compensation of all credits prior to the same and also later
ones until he had knowledge of the assignment. (1285 par 3)
D owes C P50,000. Subsequently, D proposed to C that T will assume his
(D’s) debt. C accepted the proposal of D. On due date, T could not pay
because of his insolvency which was in fact existing but was not known
to D or of public knowledge at the time that he delegated his debt. Can
C hold D liable?
*C cannot hold D liable because his (D’s) obligation was
extinguished when he was substituted by T. (1295)
D obliged himself to give 10 grams of shabu to C. Later, the parties
agreed that D would instead give to C 10 sacks of rice. Is the novation
valid?
* Novation is void because the original obligation is void,
therefore there is nothing to novate. Hence, C cannot demand the
delivery of 10 sacks of rice from D.
S sold his cabinet to B for P5,000. The parties gave their consent freely
to the contract before its perfection. After delivery of the cabinet to B
and his payment of the price to S, B was informed by N, his neighbour
that B paid too much for the cabinet since he (N), knew of a similar item
that is sold for a lower amount. B now wants to set aside the contract
because he believed he got a bad bargain. Decide.
• * B may not set aside the contract based on the principle of
Mutuality of Contract.
A and B entered into a joint venture contract whereby B agreed to put up
a restaurant on the lot of A. N, A’s neighbour who owned a lot across A’s
lot, learned of the transaction between A and B. Anticipating that many
customers would patronize the restaurant, N decided to improve his
vacant lot for parking. He incurred P20,000 for a guardhouse and other
improvements which he had not yet paid to his contractor. Later, however,
A and B mutually cancelled their earlier contract and entered into a new
one whereby B agreed to put up the restaurant on another lot belonging
to A which was located about 100 meters from the original area. N learned
of the cancellation of the contract and decided that he would sue A and B
for damages he allegedly sustained by reason threof. Decide.
* A is not entitled to sue A and B for the damages he sustained. This
is not a case of a stipulation pour autrui, where the parties in a contract
deliberately conferred upon a third person a favor or benefit. The benefit
that would have been received by N from the contract between A and B
was only incidental and did not give him the right to recover damages.
• Superior Sales Corporation (Superior) mailed a copy of an employment
contract to Mariano offering the latter the position of manager of the
company’s branch office in Legaspi City. The contract provided for a monthly
salary of P80,000.00. Mariano accepted the offer by signing on the space for
“Conforme.” However, he wrote a marginal note asking the company to
grant him a housing allowance of P20,000.00 since he would be relocating
from Manila. He then mailed back the signed copy of the contract. Was
there a perfected contract between Superior and Mariano?
a. Yes, with Mariano receiving a monthly salary of P80,000.00, but excluding
the housing allowance of P20,000.00
b. Yes, with Mariano receiving not only the monthly salary of P80,000.00, but
also the housing allowance of P20,000.00 since it is a necessary expense.
c. No, because the acceptance of Mariano varied the terms of the offer.
d. Yes, because Mariano signified his acceptance by signing on the space for
“Conforme.”
S sold his only horse to B for P30,000. The parties agreed that S shall
deliver the horse one week from the execution of their agreement. B,
however, should pay the price immediately and in certified check. In the
place of S and B, it was the custom that anyone selling a horse should
place a horseshoe on its feet. Is the seller bound to place a horseshoe on
the horse?
* S is obliged to place a horseshoe on the horse because the
observance of custom or usage is a consequence of entering into a
contract. (1315)
On June 1, S offered to sell a specific generator set to B for P300,000. B
sent his letter of acceptance to S on June 8. On June 10, however, S
became insolvent. On June 12, S received the letter of acceptance. Was
the contract perfected?
* The contract was not perfected because the insolvency of S
occurred before he came to learn of the acceptance of his offer. It is well
settled rule that an offer becomes ineffective upon the insolvency of
either party before acceptance is conveyed. (1323)
P gave a special power of attorney to A to sell P’s house and lot for
P2M. On May 7, A, pursuant to the authority granted to him by P,
offered to sell the house and lot to B at the price of P2M. B accepted
the offer on May 8 by sending a letter of acceptance to A on such date,
which letter of acceptance was received by A on May 10. On May 11, P
died before A could inform him of B’s acceptance. Was the contract
perfected?
* The contract was perfected on May 10 when A received the
letter of acceptance. An offer made through an agent is accepted from
the time acceptance is communicated to him. (1322
On May 1, S offered to sell his car for P500,000 to B who was interested
in buying the same. In his letter to B, S stated that he was giving B up to
May 31 to decide whether to buy the car or not. On May 25, S personally
went to B to inform him that he was no longer willing to sell the car
unless the price was increased to P600,000 because another buyer was
interested in buying the car for the said amount of P600,000. May S
validly withdraw his offer?
*S may validly withdraw his offer to B and all that S needs to do is
to inform B of such withdrawal. Such withdrawal must be made before
the lapse of the period of acceptance, unless there is an option founded
upon a consideration, as something paid or promised. (1324)
B purchased 100 pieces of notebook from S at P41.95. When B reached
home, he discovered that the invoice showed a total amount due of
P4,915 instead of P4,195. Is the contract valid?
*The contract is valid. The mistake is a simple mistake of account
and does not render the consent of the parties vitiated. This shall only
give rise to correction. Mistake to vitiate consent must refer to the
substance of the thing which is the object of the contract or to a
principal condition which moved the parties to enter into a contract
(1331) *The excess P720.00 should be returned by B.*
D has been for more than 10 years the personal physician of P, a sickly
man of 70 years. D talked to P almost everyday in the course of giving
medical service to P to convince P to donate his lot to D since D told
him that he was the only one who could take care of him. Because of
the persistence of D, P finally signed the deed of donation of the lot in
D’s favor with all the formalities required by law. Is the deed of
donation valid?
*The deed of donation is voidable on the ground of undue
influence. (1337)
Sale of large cattle must be in a public instrument for reason of
a. Convenience
b. Validity
c. Enforceability
d. None of the above
Contract of Antichresis must be in writing for
a. Convenience
b. Validity
c. Enforceability
d. None of the above
The amount of the principal and of the interest shall be specified in
writing; otherwise, the contract of antichresis
a. shall not valid to third persons
b. Shall be void
c. Shall be unenforceable
d. Shal be rescissible
A, who knew that his ring was embellished with glass, told B that the
embellishment was emerald. B, who knew that his watch was gold-
plated, told A that it was made of pure gold. Believing that A’s ring was
embellished with emerald and A, believing that B’s watch was made of
pure gold, then entered into a contract whereby they exchanged their
respective articles. A week later, B discovered that the ring was
adorned only with an ordinary glass. Can B ask for annulment of the
contract?
* Neither party can ask for annulment since both are guilty of
fraud. The contract therefore is valid. In order that a contract may be
considered voidable and be annulled fraud must not be committed by
both parties. (1344)
S and B entered into a contract where they made it appear that S was
selling his lot and building to B. The truth, however was that S was
donating his lot and building to B. What is the status of the contract?
* The contract is a relative simulated contract. Therefore the
parties are bound by the contract of donation, their true intention,
since no third person is prejudiced and their purpose is not contrary to
law, moral, good customs, public order or public policy. (1346)
S and B orally entered into a contract whereby S sold his one-year production
of mangoes to B for P100,000. B gave a downpayment of P20,000 for which S
issued a receipt. What is the status of the contract between S and B?
* The contract is valid. Future things may be the object of contracts.
(1347 par 1)