Oblicon Midterm BAR EXAM Questions PDF

Preview

Summary

Extinguishment; Assignment of Rights (2001)The sugar cane planters of Batangas entered into a long- term milling contract with the Central Azucarera de Don Pedro Inc. Ten years later, the Central assigned its rights to the said milling contract to a Taiwanese group which would take over the operatio...

Description

Extinguishment; Assignment of Rights (2001) The sugar cane planters of Batangas entered into a long- term milling contract with the Central Azucarera de Don Pedro Inc. Ten years later, the Central assigned its rights to the said milling contract to a Taiwanese group which would take over the operations of the sugar mill. The planters filed an action to annul the said assignment on the ground that the Taiwanese group was not registered with the Board of Investments. Will the action prosper or not? Explain briefly. (Note: The question presupposes knowledge and requires the application of the provisions of the Omnibus Investment Code, which properly belongs to Commercial law.) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The action will prosper not on the ground invoked but on the ground that the farmers have not given their consent to the assignment. The milling contract imposes reciprocal obligations on the parties. The sugar central has the obligation to mill the sugar cane of the farmers while the latter have the obligation to deliver their sugar cane to the sugar central. As to the obligation to mill the sugar cane, the sugar central is a debtor of the farmers. In assigning its rights under the contract, the sugar central will also transfer to the Taiwanese its obligation to mill the sugar cane of the farmers. This will amount to a novation of the contract by substituting the debtor with a third party. Under Article 1293 of the Civil Code, such substitution cannot take effect without the consent of the creditor. The formers, who are creditors as far as the obligation to mill their sugar cane is concerned, may annul such assignment for not having given their consent thereto. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The assignment is valid because there is absolute freedom to transfer the credit and the creditor need not get the consent of the debtor. He only needs to notify him. Extinguishment; Cause of Action (2004) TX filed a suit for ejectment against BD for non-payment of condominium rentals amounting to P150,000. During the pendency of the case, BD offered and TX accepted the full amount due as rentals from BD, who then filed a motion to dismiss the ejectment suit on the ground that the action is already extinguished. Is BD’s contention correct? Why or why not? Reason. SUGGESTED ANSWER: BD’s contention is not correct. TX can still maintain the suit for ejectment. The acceptance by the lessor of the payment by the lessee of the rentals in arrears even during the pendency of the ejectment case does not constitute a waiver or abandonment of the ejectment case. (Spouses Clutario v. CA, 216 SCRA 341 [1992]). Extinguishment; Compensation (2002)

Stockton is a stockholder of Core Corp. He desires to sell his shares in Core Corp. In view of a court suit that Core Corp. has filed against him for damages in the amount of P10 million, plus attorney’s fees of P 1 million, as a result of statements published by Stockton which are allegedly defamatory because it was calculated to injure and damage the corporation’s reputation and goodwill. The articles of incorporation of Core Corp. provide for a right of first refusal in favor of the corporation. Accordingly, Stockton gave written notice to the corporation of his offer to sell his shares of P 10 million. The response of Core corp. was an acceptance of the offer in the exercise of its rights of first refusal, offering for the purpose payment in form of compensation or set-off against the amount of damages it is claiming against him, exclusive of the claim for attorney’s fees. Stockton rejected the offer of the corporation, arguing that compensation between the value of the shares and the amount of damages demanded by the corporation cannot legally take effect. Is Stockton correct? Give reason for your answer. SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Stockton is correct. There is no right of compensation between his price of P10 million and Core Corp.’s unliquidated claim for damages. In order that compensation may be proper, the two debts must be liquidated and demandable. The case for the P 10million damages being still pending in court, the corporation has as yet no claim which is due and demandable against Stockton. ANOTHER MAIN ANSWER: The right of first refusal was not perfected as a right for the reason that there was a conditional acceptance equivalent to a counter-offer consisting in the amount of damages as being credited on the purchase price. Therefore, compensation did not result since there was no valid right of first refusal (Art. 1475 & 1319, NCC) ANOTHER MAIN ANSWER: Even [if] assuming that there was a perfect right of first refusal, compensation did not take place because the claim is unliquidated. Extinguishment; Compensation vs. Payment (1998) Define compensation as a mode of extinguishing an obligation, and distinguish it from payment. SUGGESTED ANSWER: COMPENSATION is a mode of extinguishing to the concurrent amount, the obligations of those persons who in their own right are reciprocally debtors and creditors of each other (Tolentino, 1991 ed., p.365, citing 2 Castan 560 and Francia vs. IAC, 162 SCRA 753). It involves the simultaneous balancing of two obligations in order to extinguish them to the extent in which the amount of one is covered by that of the other. (De Leon, 1992 ed., p.221, citing 8 Manresa 401). PAYMENT means not only delivery of money but also performance of an obligation (Article 1232, Civil Code). In payment, capacity to dispose of the thing paid and capacity to receive payment are required for debtor and creditor,

respectively: in compensation, such capacity is not necessary, because the compensation operates by law and not by the act of the parties. In payment, the performance must be complete; while in compensation there may be partial extinguishment of an obligation (Tolentino, supra) Extinguishment; Compensation/Set-Off; Banks (1998) X, who has a savings deposit with Y Bank in the sum of P1,000,000.00 incurs a loan obligation with the said Bank in the sum of P800,000.oo which has become due. When X tries to withdraw his deposit, Y Bank allows only P200.000.00 to be withdrawn, less service charges, claiming that compensation has extinguished its obligation under the savings account to the concurrent amount of X’s debt. X contends that compensation is improper when one of the debts, as here, arises from a contract of deposit. Assuming that the promissory note signed by X to evidence the loan does not provide for compensation between said loan and his savings deposit, who is correct? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Y bank is correct. An. 1287, Civil Code, does not apply. All the requisites of Art. 1279, Civil Code are present. In the case of Gullas vs. PNB (62 Phil. 519),the Supreme Court held: “The Civil Code contains provisions regarding compensation (set off) and deposit. These portions of Philippine law provide that compensation shall take place when two persons are reciprocally creditor and debtor of each other. In this connection, it has been held that the relation existing between a depositor and a bank is that of creditor and debtor, x x x As a general rule, a bank has a right of set off of the deposits in its hands for the payment of any indebtedness to it on the part of a depositor.” Hence, compensation took place between the mutual obligations of X and Y bank. Extinguishment; Condonation (2000) Arturo borrowed P500,000.00 from his father. After he had paid P300,000.00, his father died. When the administrator of his father’s estate requested payment of the balance of P200,000.00. Arturo replied that the same had been condoned by his father as evidenced by a notation at the back of his check payment for the P300,000.00 reading: “In full payment of the loan”. Will this be a valid defense in an action for collection? SUGGESTED ANSWER: It depends. If the notation “in full payment of the loan” was written by Arturo’s father, there was an implied condonation of the balance that discharges the obligation. In such case, the notation is an act of the father from which condonation may be inferred. The condonation being implied, it need not comply with the formalities of a donation to be effective. The defense of full payment will, therefore, be valid. When, however, the notation was written by Arturo himself. It merely proves his intention in making that payment but in no way does it bind his father (Yam v. CA, G.R. No. 104726, 11 February 1999). In such case, the notation was not the act of his father from which condonation may be inferred. There being no condonation at all the defense of full payment will not be valid. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

If the notation was written by Arturo’s father, it amounted to an express condonation of the balance which must comply with the formalities of a donation to be valid under the 2nd paragraph of Article 1270 of the New Civil Code. Since the amount of the balance is more than 5,000 pesos, the acceptance by Arturo of the condonation must also be in writing under Article 748. There being no acceptance in writing by Arturo, the condonation is void and the obligation to pay the balance subsists. The defense of full payment is, therefore, not valid. In case the notation was not written by Arturo’s father, the answer is the same as the answers above. Extinguishment; Extraordinary Inflation or Deflation (2001) On July 1, 1998, Brian leased an office space in a building for a period of five years at a rental rate of P1,000.00 a month. The contract of lease contained the proviso that “in case of inflation or devaluation of the Philippine peso, the monthly rental will automatically be increased or decreased depending on the devaluation or inflation of the peso to the dollar.” Starting March 1, 2001, the lessor increased the rental to P2,000 a month, on the ground of inflation proven by the fact that the exchange rate of the Philippine peso to the dollar had increased from P25.00=$1.00 to P50.00=$1.00. Brian refused to pay the increased rate and an action for unlawful detainer was filed against him. Will the action prosper? Why? SUGGESTED ANSWER: The unlawful detainer action will not prosper. Extraordinary inflation or deflation is defined as the sharp decrease in the purchasing power of the peso. It does not necessarily refer to the exchange rate of the peso to the dollar. Whether or not there exists an extraordinary inflation or deflation is for the courts to decide. There being no showing that the purchasing power of the peso had been reduced tremendously, there could be no inflation that would justify the increase in the amount of rental to be paid. Hence, Brian could refuse to pay the increased rate. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The action will not prosper. The existence of inflation or deflation requires an official declaration by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The unlawful detainer action will prosper. It is a given fact in the problem, that there was inflation, which caused the exchange rate to double. Since the contract itself authorizes the increase in rental in the event of an inflation or devaluation of the Philippine peso, the doubling of the monthly rent is reasonable and is therefore a valid act under the very terms of the contract. Brian’s refusal to pay is thus a ground for ejectment. Extinguishment; Loss (1994) Dino sued Ben for damages because the latter had failed to deliver the antique Marcedes Benz car Dino had purchased from Ben, which was—by agreement—due for delivery on December 31, 1993. Ben, in his answer to Dino’s complaint, said Dino’s claim has no basis for the suit, because as the car was being driven to be delivered to Dino on January 1, 1994, a reckless truck driver had rammed into the Mercedes Benz. The trial court dismissed Dino’s complaint, saying Ben’s obligation had indeed, been extinguished by force majeure.

Is the trial court correct? SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) No. Article 1262, New Civil Code provides, “An obligation which consists in the delivery of a determinate thing shall be extinguished if it should be lost or destroyed without the fault of the debtor, and before he has incurred in delay. b) The judgment of the trial court is incorrect. Loss of the thing due by fortuitous events or force majeure is a valid defense for a debtor only when the debtor has not incurred delay. Extinguishment of liability for fortuitous event requires that the debtor has not yet incurred any delay. In the present case, the debtor was in delay when the car was destroyed on January 1, 1993 since it was due for delivery on December 31, 1993. (Art. 1262 Civil Code) c) It depends whether or not Ben the seller, was already in default at the time of the accident because a demand for him to deliver on due date was not complied with by him. That fact not having been given in the problem, the trial court erred in dismissing Dino’s complaint. Reason: There is default making him responsible for fortuitous events including the assumption of risk or loss. If on the other hand Ben was not in default as no demand has been sent to him prior to the accident, then we must distinguish whether the price has been paid or not. If it has been paid, the suit for damages should prosper but only to enable the buyer to recover the price paid. It should be noted that Ben, the seller, must bear the loss on the principle of res perit domino. He cannot be held answerable for damages as the loss of the car was not imputable to his fault or fraud. In any case, he can recover the value of the car from the party whose negligence caused the accident. If no price has been paid at all, the trial court acted correctly in dismissing the complaint. You are here: Home ∼ 2013 ∼ May ∼ Civil Law Bar Exam Answers: Obligations CIVIL LAW BAR EXAM ANSWERS: OBLIGATIONS Published by adminC on May 8, 2013 | Leave a response Aleatory Contracts; Gambling (2004) A. Mr. ZY lost P100,000 in a card game called Russian poker, but he had no more cash to pay in full the winner at the time the session ended. He promised to pay PX, the winner, two weeks thereafter. But he failed to do so despite the lapse of two months, so PX filed in court a suit to collect the amount of P50,000 that he won but remained unpaid. Will the collection suit against ZY prosper? Could Mrs. ZY file in turn a suit against PX to recover the P100,000 that her husband lost? Reason. SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. 1) The suit by PX to collect the balance of what he won from ZY will not prosper. Under Article 2014 of the Civil Code, no action can be maintained by the winner for the collection of what he has won in a game of chance. Although poker may depend in part on ability, it is fundamentally a game of chance. 2) If the money paid by ZY to PX was conjugal or community property, the wife of ZY could sue to recover it because Article 117(7) of the Family Code provides that losses in gambling or betting are borne exclusively by the loser-

spouse. Hence, conjugal or community funds may not be used to pay for such losses. If the money were exclusive property of ZY, his wife may also sue to recover it under Article 2016 of the Civil Code if she and the family needed the money for support. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER (2): A. (2). Mrs. ZY cannot file a suit to recover what her husband lost. Art 2014 of the Civil Code provides that any loser in a game of chance may recover his loss from the winner, with legal interest from the time he paid the amount lost. This means that only he can file the suit. Mrs. ZY cannot recover as a spouse who has interest in the absolute community property or conjugal partnership of gains, because under Art. 117(7} of the Family Code, losses are borne exclusively by the loser-spouse. Therefore, these cannot be charged against absolute community property or conjugal partnership of gains. This being so, Mrs. ZY has no interest in law to prosecute and recover as she has no legal standing in court to do so. Conditional Obligations (2000) Pedro promised to give his grandson a car if the latter will pass the bar examinations. When his grandson passed the said examinations, Pedro refused to give the car on the ground that the condition was a purely potestative one. Is he correct or not? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, he is not correct. First of all, the condition is not purely potestative, because it does not depend on the sole will of one of the parties. Secondly, even if it were, it would be valid because it depends on the sole will of the creditor (the donee) and not of the debtor (the donor). Conditional Obligations (2003) Are the following obligations valid, why, and if they are valid, when is the obligation demandable in each case? a) If the debtor promises to pay as soon as he has the means to pay; b) If the debtor promises to pay when he likes; c) If the debtor promises to pay when he becomes a lawyer; d) If the debtor promises to pay if his son, who is sick with cancer, does not die within one year. SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) The obligation is valid. It is an obligation subject to an indefinite period because the debtor binds himself to pay when his means permit him to do so (Article 1180, NCC). When the creditor knows that the debtor already has the means to pay, he must file an action in court to fix the period, and when the definite period as set by the court arrives, the obligation to pay becomes demandable 9Article 1197, NCC).

SUGGESTED ANSWER: (b) The obligation “to pay when he likes” is a suspensive condition the fulfillment of which is subject to the sole will of the debtor and, therefore the conditional obligation is void. (Article 1182, NCC). SUGGESTED ANSWER: (c) The obligation is valid. It is subject to a suspensive condition, i.e. the future and uncertain event of his becoming a lawyer. The performance of this obligation does not depend solely on the will of the debtor but also on other factors outside the debtor’s control. SUGGESTED ANSWER: (d) The obligation is valid. The death of the son of cancer within one year is made a negative suspensive condition to his making the payment. The obligation is demandable if the son does not die within one year (Article 1185, NCC). Conditional Obligations; Promise (1997) In two separate documents signed by him, Juan Valentino “obligated” himself each to Maria and to Perla, thus – ‘To Maria, my true love, I obligate myself to give you my one and only horse when I feel like It.” – and – ‘To Perla, my true sweetheart, I obligate myself to pay you the P500.00 I owe you when I feel like it.” Months passed but Juan never bothered to make good his promises. Maria and Perla came to consult you on whether or not they could recover on the basis of the foregoing settings. What would your legal advice be? SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would advise Maria not to bother running after Juan for the latter to make good his promise. [This is because a promise is not an actionable wrong that allows a party to recover especially when she has not suffered damages resulting from such promise. A promise does not create an obligation on the part of Juan because it is not something which arises from a contract, law, quasi-contracts or quasi- delicts (Art, 1157)]. Under Art. 1182, Juan’s promise to Maria is void because a conditional obligation depends upon the sole will of the obligor. As regards Perla, the document is an express acknowledgment of a debt, and the promise to pay what he owes her when he feels like it is equivalent to a promise to pay when his means permits him to do so, and is deemed to be one with an indefinite period under Art. 1180. Hence the amount is recoverable after Perla asks the court to set the period as provided by Art. 1197, par. 2. Conditional Obligations; Resolutory Condition (1999) In 1997, Manuel bound himself to sell Eva a house and lot which is being rented by another person, if Eva passes the 1998 bar examinations. Luckily for Eva, she passed said examinations. (a) Suppose Manuel had sold the same house and lot to another before Eva passed the 1998 bar examinations, is such sale valid? Why?

(b) Assuming that it is Eva who is entitled to buy said house and lot, is she entitled to the rentals collected by Manuel before she passed the 1998 bar examinations? Why? SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) Yes, the sale to the other person is valid as a sale with a resolutory condition because what operates as a suspensive condition for Eva operates a resolutory condition for the buyer. FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANS WE...