CHRISTEL JEAN M.
CANJA BSA 2A
OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS - Quiz No. 1
OCTOBER 20, 2021
MULTIPLE CHOICE
ANSWERS:
1. b
2. d
3. c
4. d
5. a
6. b
7. c
8. d
9. a
10. b
11. c
12. a
13. d
14. d
15. a
ENUMERATION
1. Sources of obligation.
Law
Contracts
Quasi-contracts
Delicts
Quasi-delicts
2. Three (3) kinds of delay or mora.
Mora solvendi
Mora accipiendi
Compensation morae
3. Elements of fortuitous event.
Cause is independent of the will of the debtor.
The event must be unforeseeable or unavoidable.
Occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to
fulfil his obligation in a normal manner.
Debtor must be free from any participation in.
The aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. (Lasam vs. Smith,
45 Phil. 657)
4. Requisites of Obligation with a period.
It must be future
It must be certain
Possible legally and physically
5. Kinds of voluntary breach.
Default (mora/delay)
Fraud (dolo/deceit)
Negligence (fault/culpa)
Contravention of the tenor of the obligation
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. Joint Obligation
- One in which the whole obligation is proportionally paid or fulfilled by
the different debtors and / or demanded proportionately by the
different creditors. (Art. 1208)
2. Conditional Obligation
- One whose consequences are contingent on the fulfillment of a
condition in one way or another.
3. Suspensive condition
- One that will result in a legal obligation if it is fulfilled. In other words,
the obligation’s demandability is suspended until the occurrence of
the uncertain event that creates the condition.
4. Alternative Obligation
- One in which numerous prestations are due but the performance of
one is sufficient. (Art. 1199)
5. Facultative Obligation
- One in which only one prestations is due but the debtor has the option
of substituting another. (Art. 1206)
ESSAY
1. Rachel borrowed P100, 000.00 from Mae. On due date of the loan,
Rachel could not pay Mae because she lost to a robber the P100, 000
intended for Mae. In addition, Rachel suffered financial reverses, and
was short of cash even for family needs. Is Rachel legally justified to
refuse to pay Mae? Why or why not?
ANSWER:
No, Rachel is not legally justified to refuse to pay Mae because she is still
liable to pay the P100, 000 even if there is a fortuitous event
distinguished from force majeure where the acts of man is being
applied, where the event is independent of the will of the obligor but
not of other human wills. According to the requisites of a fortuitous
event, the event must be unforeseeable, or even if it could be foreseen,
must be impossible to avoid. In other words, the obligation of Rachel to
pay Mae a P100, 000 is extinguished because according to the rule,
Rachel is responsible for loss or damage caused to another resulting
from the non-performance of her obligation due to fortuitous event.
And Rachel is still liable because the P100, 000 is a generic or
indeterminate thing which cannot be substitute and according to the
Article 1263, in an obligation to deliver a generic thing, the loss or
destruction of anything of the same kind does not extinguish the
obligation.
2. Can Felipe and Helen enter a contract where one has to slap a police
officer? Why or why not?
ANSWER:
No, Felipe and Helen should not engage in activities that involves or
targeting the police officer who’s in a position of authority and
command because according to Article 1156, an obligation is a
juridical necessity not to do. Therefore the condition is unlawful and the
contract is invalid.
3. While Pido and Pao were playing football, the football kicked by Pido hit
and broke the glass of the neighbor. Pido insisted that he should not be
liable because there were no pre-existing contractual relation between
them and it was just an accident. Decide the case.
ANSWER:
In this case, Pido is under the obligation to pay the damage caused to
his neighbor by his act because according to the Article 2176, Pido is
liable although there is no pre-existing contractual relation between
them because he is still guilty of mere fault or negligence without any
criminal intent.
4. Supposed Tracy promised to deliver Faye a female horse named Mimi,
what are the duties of Tracy in obligation to deliver Mimi?
ANSWER:
The duties of Tracy in obligation to deliver Mimi are, under the Article
1163, she must preserve or take care of the thing, under the Article 1164,
she must deliver the fruits of the thing, under the Article 1166, deliver the
accessions and accessories, deliver the thing itself, and under the Article
1170, she will answer for damages in case of non-fulfillment or breach.
5. A, B, and C executed a promisory note binding themselves to pay P9,
000.00 to X, Y, and Z. The promissory note is now due and demandable.
a. Can the creditors proceed against A alone for the payment of
the entire obligation? Why?
ANSWER:
No, because A, B, and C are liable only for P3,000 each and that
the creditors is not entitled to collect from A more than their
corresponding share in the obligation. In such case, the
presumptions of this obligation is joint and according to the Article
1207, there is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly
so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires
solidarity. As a consequence, the debts and credits are
considered distinct and separate from one another. Therefore X,
Y, and Z is entitled only to a proportionate part of the credit and
also A, B, and C is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt.
b. Can X alone proceed against A, B, and C for the payment of the
entire obligation? Why?
ANSWER:
No, X cannot demand against A, B, and C because X is not
entitled to collect from each debtor more than his corresponding
share in the obligation. And according to Article 1207, the
concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in
one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the
former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is
bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation.
c. Suppose that X proceeds against A alone for payment, how
much can he collect? Why?
ANSWER:
Yes, X can demand only P1, 000 from A because according to
Article 1208, the credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided
into as many equal shares as there are creditors or debtors.
d. Suppose that C was declared insolvent by the court, can A and B
he held liable for his share in the obligation? Why?
ANSWER:
No, because since the debts are distinct and separate from each
other, the insolvency of C shall not make A and B liable, where
the Article 1209, states that if the division is impossible, the right of
the creditors may be prejudiced only by their collective acts, and
the debt can be enforced only by proceeding against all the
debtors. If one of the latter is insolvent, the others shall not be
liable for his share.
