1. Corona bound himself to deliver his only house to Covid on April 19, 2020.

On
said date, Corona failed to deliver the said house.
Question: Is Corona in legal delay? If yes why? Discuss. If no why? Discuss.

No. The term legal delay or default or mora is the failure to perform an obligation on
time by which failure, constitutes a breach of obligation. Meanwhile, an ordinary
delay is simply the failure to perform an obligation on timeSince Corona just bound
HIMSELF and not based on an actual contract, the case is just an example of ordinary
delay. The law presumes that Covid is giving corona an extension of time when to
deliver the house. Therefore, therre is no breach of obligation and Corona is not
liable for damages.

2. Ben agreed with Dan that the former will sell his original Samsung cell phone to
the latter for a discount of 50% of the selling price. Delivery and payment will be on
April 1, 2020. On said date, Ben deliberately changed said cell phone with an
imitation.
Question:

a. What kind of fraud was employed? Why?

It is an incidental fraud since the contract is still valid. However, Ben is entitled to
liabilities for certain damages.

b. What is the remedy of Dan, if any? Explain.

Dan can demand for payment of damages to Ben where it is the only feasible
remedy because Article 1170 states that those who in the performance of their
obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. Since Ben is guilty of the said
fraud, Ben should compensate for the damages he had done to Dan.

3. Kit was a BSCA student of Mang Kanor College when he was shot by Rick, a
security guard on duty at the school premises. Kit was rushed to nearby hospital for
treatment. Kit after the incident filed a case against the school and its officials for
damages.
Question:
Is the school liable? Why? Explain with basis.

Yes. The school is liable since the injury happened within the school premises even
after medical treatment. Since it has been proven that the damage is done by an
official at school, the liability belongs to the school. Based on loco parentis, while a
child is at school or a school-sponsored activity, the teacher has the responsibility
and duties of the student’s parents and if these duties were not fully meet, due with
strong evidences, they are bound to pay for the damages. The case, however, needs
further investigation on who’s at fault but these can not disregard the fact that a
student, which is supposed to be taken good care of, was badly injured within the
school.
4. Mang Johnny and Homer entered into a contract of agency. And one of the
stipulations in the said contract is that if Mang Johnny commits fraud against Homer
in the future regarding the performance of their contract, Mang Johnny will not be
liable to Homer.
Is the agreement valid. Why?

No. Because article 1171 states that responsibility arising from fraud is demandable
in all obligations. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void. Homer can be
considered generous but the law presumes that the agreement will just encourage
the perpetration of fraud since the obligor knows that even he commits the said
mistake, he would not be liable for it making the agreement and obligation illusory.

5. On January 20, 2020, Francis bound himself to give his only car to Alec if the latter
passes the April 2020 CBLE. Francis passed the CBLE. From January 20, 2020 up to
April 2020, Francis introduced some improvements on the said car like the repainting
of the entire body due to deterioration, change of major engine parts due to oil
leakage, and putting leather seat cover.
Who has the right over the improvements? Why?

In terms of delivery, since Francis still has the car, it is Francis’. Alec has the right of
improvements only upon the delivery. Subject to the time, since Article 1164 says
that the creditor has a right to the fruits of the thing from the time the obligation to
deliver it arises. However, he shall acquire no real right over it until the same has
been delivered to him. Prior to the improvements, Article 1163 says that every
person obliged to give something is also obliged to take care of it with the proper
diligence of a good father of a family, unless the law or the stipulation of the parties
requires another standard of care. Francis only did his duties as a good father and,
since he is bound to give the said thing to Alec, Alec has the right over it.

6. On October 12, 2019, Ben obtained a loan from Francis in the amount of P1M due
on March 16, 2020. Subsequently, they both forgot the maturity date of the
obligation and Ben paid it on February 14, 2020. Can Ben recover what he has paid?
Explain.

They are both liable to negligence since they both forgot the maturity date. However,
Ben can not recover what he has paid since the moment he paid, the obligation was
extinguished. Extinguished obligations can not be recovered because this can cause
damage or nuisance to the creditor. Article 1231 states that obligations are
extinguished:
(1) By payment or performance;
(2) By the loss of the thing due;
(3) By the condonation or remission of the debt;
(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor;
(5) By compensation;
(6) By novation.
Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as annulment, rescission,
fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and prescription, are governed elsewhere in this
Code.

7. Arthur obliged himself to deliver to Francis 100 bottles of French perfume.

However, despite diligent efforts of Arthur to deliver all, he was able to deliver only
98 bottles because of import restrictions.
Question: Is the obligation of Arthur extinguished? Explain with legal basis.

Yes. His obligation is done in good faith as stated, and as Article 1234 says, if the
obligation has been substantially performed in good faith, the obligor may recover as
though there had been a strict and complete fulfillment, less damages suffered by
the obligee. Acceptance from the creditor can also extinguish Arthur’s liability.
Article 1235 connotes that when the obligee accepts the performance, knowing its
incompleteness or irregularity, and without expressing any protest or objection, the
obligation is deemed fully complied with. Prior to the import restrictions which is the
main cause of the failure of delivery of the thing in partial, Article 1174 states that
except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable. Articles supporting the answer also includes:
ARTICLE 1183. Impossible conditions, those contrary to good customs or public
policy and those prohibited by law shall annul the obligation which depends upon
them. If the obligation is divisible, that part thereof which is not affected by the
impossible or unlawful condition shall be valid. The condition not to do an impossible
thing shall be considered as not having been agreed upon. (1116a)
ARTICLE 1184. The condition that some event happen at a determinate time shall
extinguish the obligation as soon as the time expires or if it has become indubitable
that the event will not take place. (1117)
ARTICLE 1185. The condition that some event will not happen at a determinate time
shall render the obligation effective from the moment the time indicated has
elapsed, or if it has become evident that the event cannot occur. If no time has been
fixed, the condition shall be deemed fulfilled at such time as may have probably
been contemplated, bearing in mind the nature of the obligation. (1118)

8. Caren mortgaged her property to Francis in the amount of P200,000.00. Alfred, a

third person, pays the whole mortgage debt of Caren to Francis without the
knowledge of Caren. He then asks that Francis assign to him (Alfred) the former’s
rights as mortgagee.

Question:

a. If Francis refuses, can Alfred compel him? Why?

No. According to the law, specifically Article 1237, whoever pays on behalf of the
debtor without the knowledge or against the will of the latter, cannot compel the
creditor to subrogate him in his rights, such as those arising from a mortgage,
guaranty, or penalty.
b. If Francis wants to make the assignment, can Alfred be subrogated to Francis’
rights as mortgagee? Explain.
Yes. Only to a legal subrogation and not to conventional since this is with respect to
the creditor’s point of view. Article 1302 states that it is presumed that there is legal
subrogation:
(1) When a creditor pays another creditor who is preferred, even without the
debtor’s knowledge;
(2) When a third person, not interested in the obligation, pays with the express or
tacit approval of the debtor;
(3) When, even without the knowledge of the debtor, a person interested in the
fulfillment of the obligation pays, without prejudice to the effects of confusion as to
the latter’s share.

9. Andy, a minor, is indebted to Ben for the sum of P10, 000.00. While still a minor,
Andy pays Ben the whole amount of P10, 000.00.

a. Is the payment made by Andy to Ben valid? Why?

Yes. Even if a minor, his obligation was made and extinguished in good faith.

b. Supposing that at the time of payment, Andy is between the ages of 18 and 21
and Ben spends in good faith the amount paid, may Andy recover what he paid?
Explain.
No. Because under Article 1427, when a minor between eighteen and twenty-one
years of age, who has entered into a contract without the consent of the parent or
guardian, voluntarily pays a sum of money or delivers a fungible thing in fulfillment
of the obligation, there shall be no right to recover the same from the obligee who
has spent or consumed it in good faith.

10. Is the creditor bound to accept check?

Yes. Because it is a tender of payment which the debtor offers for a thing or amount
due. If he refuses it, it should be of good and valid reasons because under Article
1256, 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.