Q1. A Filipino vendor of a land sought to void a sale
The minor later on voluntarily made
of real property on the ground that the vendee, a
realty corporation which is 40 % Chinese
individuals owned and 60% Filipino individuals
corporation. Will the action to void the deed of sale
prosper?
A1. No. Under the law, if the corporation is in the
realty business, a 40% foreign and 60% Filipino
owned is allowed to own real properties here in the
Philippines. The corporation is considered to have
a Filipino nationality. Sale is deemed valid.
Q2. A farmer grantee of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) owns a land
which under the law, prohibits him from disposing
his land within 10 years from the time the title was
issued to him. In violation of the law, he sold the
land which was granted to him under the CARP.
Now the farmer filed an action to void the sale and
to reacquire his land. Will his action prosper for him
to be able to get back his land?
A2. Since the law provides so that for the 10 year
period they cannot dispose, then he can recover
back his land and the buyer bought it with a risk.
The law is supposed to help out farmers to own
their own lands, and to be productive at the same
time. CARP law was intended to provide lands to
the landless to help out stamp poverty. The
prohibition is annotated in the title and so the buyer
bears the risk when he bought the land covered
under the CARP.
Q3. A son of his deceased mother promised to pay
off the prescribed debt of his mother. Was there a
sufficient consideration to make valid and effective
the promise of the son to pay the same?
A3. This is a case of a natural obligation entered
into by the son. The sons promise here is
considered as a sufficient consideration. When he
made the promise, despite that the debt was
already prescribed, then he waived the prescriptive
period and had assumed to pay off his mothers
debt.
Q4. A minor who is 16 years old and already in first
year college had entered into a contract which was
later on voided.
a restitution of what he has received. Can he
recover what he delivered considering that it was a
subject of a voided contract?
A4. No. this is under the natural obligation. The
minor is already almost of age of majority and can
be presumed to have acted with discernment and
understood what he was doing when he restituted
what he had received despite that he was then a
minor. He cannot therefore recover what he has
already delivered.
Q5. Sonia sold to Babylyn 100 bags of cement at
P70 per bag for a total price of P70,000. Sonia was
able to deliver only 98 bags because the two bags
were stolen without the fault of Sonia.
(a) Has Sonia the right to insist that Babylyn pay for
the 98 bags since there was no fault in her part and
only two bags are lacking?
A5(a) No Sonia cannot insist. Bags of cement were
the object of this contract. This is a mass of
specific goods, and the rule under Art. 1484 is to
apply. Distinction should be made with the rule
under Art. 1480 as to the point when the thing got
lost, and the kind of object involved in the contract,
if it is a specific good or a mass of specific good
and whether the thing got lost before perfection of
the contract, or at the time of the perfection, or after
perfection but before its delivery and or got lost
after its delivery.
(b) With the same set of facts in Q5, what rights, if
any, are given by law to Babylyn?
A5(b) Babylyn can choose between withdrawing
from the contract of sale or paying its proportionate
price and demanding for the remaining part.
(c) In the same set of facts in Q5, the price was
fixed at P70,000 for the whole lot, irrespective of
the number of bags which happens to be also 100
bags. Will your answer still be the same?
A5(c) No, Babylyn has to pay for the 98 bags fixed
at P70,000 even if 2 bags are lacking. Price was
set for the whole lot and the amount which was lost
which is 2 out of the 100, is not a substantial
number to have affected their contract.
Q6. Bobby, a minor, bought a pair of imported
shoes worth P3,000 from a department store. Can
Felix, his father, cancel the sale on the ground of
the minority of Bobby?
A6. Not anymore. Shoes are considered as
necessaries and Bobby being a minor had
benefited from it. The fact that it is imported shoes,
and Bobby was able to afford it, then basing on his
capacity, he must be able to afford the same, and it
was within his financial capability to purchase the
same. If the price can be considered as
unreasonable, considering all the circumstances,
then an amount beyond what is reasonable can be
recovered. Of course, if Bobby is a minor of such
age, like 6 or 7 years old, who does not have any
discernment of what he is doing, then it can be that
the father may ask for the sale to be cancelled, it
being a voidable contract.
Q7. Honesto and Wilhelmina are husband and wife.
After selling his properties to Wilhelmina, Honesto
borrowed a big amount of money from Concepcion.
It appears that Honesto is now bankrupt. Does
Concepcion have the right to question the sale of
Honesto's property to Wilhelmina in order to have
the said property answer for Honesto's
indebtedness to him?
A7. Yes, Concpecion can question the sale of
Honestos properties to Wilhelmina. Sale between
spouses is prohibited under the law, unless they
had a separation of properties under their pre-
nuptial agreement, or a judicial separation of
property had been decreed by the court between
the spouses.
Q8. Stephen sold to Buenaventura bags of cement
at P70 per bag for a total price of P70,000. Stephen
was able to deliver only 98 bags because the two
bags were stolen without the fault of Stephen. Does
Stephen have the right to insist that Buenaventura
pay for the 98 bags since there was no fault on his
part and only two bags are lacking? What rights, if
any, are given by law to B?
A8. Please refer to answer in A5(a)
Q9. In the same set of facts in Q8, the price was
fixed at P70,000 for the whole lot, irrespective of
the number of bags which happens to be also 100
bags. Will your answer still be the same?
A9. Please refer to answer in A5(c).
Q10. Piolo bought a medicine from a drug store. Its
label says that it provides a "very effective relief
from asthma." However, Piolo continues to suffer
from asthma attacks. Does Piolo have the right to
complain for misrepresentation against the drug
manufacturer.
A10. No. Mere usual exaggerations in trade and not
to be considered as a warranty. Or can be
considered as an expression of an opinion.