OBLIGATIONS

Q27. A, B, C and D, solidary debtors, are obliged to give V, X, Y and Z, solidary

creditors, P20,000.00.

V, being a solidary creditor may collect P20,000.00 from D, the latter being a
solidary debtor. Under Art. 1214, the debtor may pay any one of the solidary creditors;
but if any demand, judicial or extrajudicial, has been made by one of them, payment
should be made to him. Moreover, Art. 1216 clearly states that the creditor may
proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously.

In a solidary obligation, each debtor is liable to for the whole obligation, and each
creditor is entitled to demand payment of the whole obligation. Thus, D, being a
solidary debtor is liable to pay the whole amount of P20,000 and V being a solidary
creditor is entitled to demand payment the said amount.

Q59. The passage of time as a mode of acquiring or losing a right including the
extinguishment of an obligation is called: prescription

Q91. Assuming that in No. 88, D did not deliver the land and its fruits to C. Instead, he
delivered the same to X, who was in good faith when he acquired the land and its fruits
on April 30.

X is the rightful owner of the land. Under Art. 1477, the ownership of the thing
sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof.

In this case, X had no knowledge of the previous contract executed between D

and C. Since the delivery was made to X and not to C, X is the rightful owner.

Q123. The following obligations with a term or period, except: D- D to give C

P50,000.00 if C’s father dies within 2 years.

Q155. A, B and C are liable to X in the amount of P30,000.00. The debt is evidenced by
a promissory note which reads “I promise to pay X or order P30,000.00.” The note is
signed by A, B and C. X indorsed the note to Y, Y to Z and Z to A for merchandise Z
bought from A.

The obligation under the note is totally extinguished. Art. 1249 provides that, the
delivery of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile
documents shall produce the effect of payment only when they have been cashed, or
when through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired.
 In this case, the indorsement made by X is in effect an encashment. Thus, A, B,
and C’s obligation to X is already extinguished.

Q187. D was obliged to deliver a specific car to C on May 31, 2015. On such date,
however, D failed to deliver the car. C also did not make any demand for the delivery of
the car.

D was not in delay when he failed to deliver the car on due date. Art. 1169 states
that, those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee
judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation.
However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay may
exist:
(1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declare; or

(2) When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it
appears that the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the
service is to be rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the
contract; or

(3) When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it
beyond his power to perform.


In this case however, the obligation to deliver the car is neither of the three that
does not require demand. Since C did not make a demand, D will not be considered in
delay.

Q219. A, B and C are jointly liable to X in the amount of P12,000.00. On due date, X
demanded payment from A but A refused to pay. How much may X collect from B?

X may collect P4,000.00 without any damages from B, B only being a joint
debtor. Art. 1208 provides that if from the law, or the nature or the wording of the
obligations to which the preceding article refers the contrary does not appear, the credit
or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many shares as there are creditors or
debtors, the credits or debts being considered distinct from one another.

In this case, the obligation is joint, thus, each debtor is liable only for a
proportionate part of the debt which is P4,000.00.

Q251. A, B and C are indebted to W, X, Y and Z in the amount of P24,000.00. In this

case:

W can collect P8,000.00 each from A, B and C. Then, he need not give any
amount to X, Y and Z. Art. 1214 states that, the debtor may pay any one of the solidary
creditors; but if any demand, judicial or extrajudicial, has been made by one of them,
payment should be made to him. Since the obligation is joint, the debtors may only pay
their proportionate share to the creditor who made the demand to collect the payment
who is W, in this case.

Q283. If two or more persons claims the same right to collect from the debtor, the
debtor’s appropriate remedy is consignation.

Art. 1256 states: If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made
refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from
responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due. Consignation
alone shall produce the same effect in the following cases:
(1) When the creditor is absent or unknown, or does not appear at
the place of payment;

(2) When he is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is
due;

(3) When, without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt;

(4) When two or more persons claim the same right to collect;

(5) When the title of the obligation has been lost.

CONTRACTS

Q30. On July 1, 2015, Serrano offered to sell his only Mercedes Benz for P1,000,000.00
to Benitez who was interested in buying the same. In his letter to Benitez, Serrano
stated that he was giving Benitez up to July 31, 2015 to make up his mind whether to
buy the car or not. On July 25, 2015, Serrano personally went to Benitez to inform him
that he was no longer willing to sell the car unless the price was increased to P1,
400,000.00 because another buyer was interested in buying the car for the said amount.

Serrano may validly withdraw his offer to Benito because the option was not
founded upon a consideration. Art. 1324 states that, when the offerer has allowed the
offeree a certain period to accept, the offer may be withdrawn at any time before
acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is founded
upon a consideration, as something paid or promised.

In this case, there was no consideration paid for the purpose of the holding one
to his promise to buy or sell a determinate thing for a certain period of time, which is a
consideration separate and distinct from the purchase price. Thus, Serrano may still
validly withdraw his offer to sell the car.

Q62. C filed a complaint in court against D to collect a money debt amounting to

P500,000.00. After due hearing, the court rendered judgment in favor of C. Shortly after
the rendition of the judgment and before C has collected D’s debt, D sold a parcel of
land to X. Z, another creditor, learned of the sale made by D to X and now files an
action to rescind the sale.
 Both C and Z have a right to rescind the sale since the sale is presumed in fraud
of creditors having been made by party against whom judgment has been rendered.
The following contracts enumerated in Art. 1381 are rescissible:
(1) Those which are entered into by guardians whenever the wards whom
they represent suffer lesion by more than one-fourth of the value of the things
which are the object thereof;

(2) Those agreed upon in representation of absentees, if the latter suffer
the lesion stated in the preceding number;

(3) Those undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any
other manner collect the claims due them;

(4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered
into by the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of
competent judicial authority;

(5) All other contracts specially declared by law to be subject to rescission.

The sale is clearly one that is undertaken in fraud of creditors since D sold the
land knowing that he has an obligation to pay C.

Q94. D obtained a loan of P100,000.00 from C. The loan agreement showed that the
loan was payable within one year with interest at 6% per annum. However, there was
no provision saying that the rights and obligations of the parties would be transmitted to
their heirs or successors-in-interest. Before maturity, C died leaving his son S as heir.
Which of the following statements is correct?

S can collect from D although no mention was made in the agreement that the
credit right would be transmitted to the heirs. Art. 1311 provides that, contracts take
effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights
and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by
stipulation or by provision of law.

In this case, although there was no provision saying that the rights and
obligations of the parties would be transmitted to their heirs or successors-in-interest,
C’s right to collect the loan was transferred to his son S when the former died, by
operation of law.

Q126. C.

Q158. B obtained delivery from S of a Nikkon camera and an unlicensed revolver which
he purchased from the latter at the price of P1,500.00 and P5,000.00, respectively. No
written agreement was signed by the parties to keep the contract a secret.

The sale of the camera is valid and enforceable, while that of the revolver is void.
Art. 1403 (2)(d) states that, an agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things in
action, at a price not less than P500.00, unless the buyer accept and receive part of
such goods and chattels, or the evidences, or some of them, of such things in action or
pay at the time some part of the purchase money.

In this case, there was full payment and delivery of the Nikkon camera. Thus, it is
taken out of the operation of the Statute of frauds and it may be enforced even if it was
made orally.
The sale of the revolver, however, is void. Art. 1409(1) states that, those whose
cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy. Sale of an unlicensed revolver is illegal. Thus, its contract is void.

Q190. A written contract of sale of a lot between S, the seller, and B, buyer, for
P50,000.00. The lot is the only property of S who sold it to defraud C, his creditor. B
was not aware of the fraudulent intent of S in selling the lot to him.

The contract is rescissible. Under Art. 1381(3), those undertaken in fraud of

creditors when the latter cannot in any other manner collect the claims due them may
be rescinded.

In this case, it is clear that S intended to defraud his creditor when he executed
the contract, knowing fully well that he has no other properties nor means to pay his
obligation. Thus, the contract of sale is rescissible.