Group 1.

The contract was unenforceable because the mother lacks authority to dispose the property,
being a natural guardian only and not the legal administrator of properties.in badillo vs ferrer,
the court ruled that the unenforceable contract entered into shall be annuled.
Group 2 .

Kanlungan's contention is untenable. The obligation in this case arises from a breach of a
contract of carriage. As Tsuper's employer,he is directly and primarily liable. Moreover,the
defense of exercising due diligence of a good father of a family does not apply to cases of culpa
contractual. At best,it may only serve to mitigate his liability,if he could prove it. See Articles
1170,1172, and 1173.
Group 3.

For (a)&(b) the donee cannot compel A to observe the necessary form given that in the first
place the donation (offer -acceptance) is void.the subject matter being a real property falls
under formal kind of contract therefore, in this case there can be no transmission of right from
it. Also, the form is merely for purposes of convenience. For (c)&(d) the donee can compel A to
execute the nec.form.in rel.to Art.1357. Also 1358 last par.in ref.to Statute of frauds. *further
reading suggested
Group 4.
Situation:
1. A brought an action against B, his debtor. A won. After judgement, B sold his property to
C. X, another creditor of B wants to rescind the sale to C.Both C and B claim that X does
not have the right to interfere because after all, it was A not X who had won a
judgement against B. Are C and B justified?
Answer: C and B are not justified.according to ART.1387, 2
nd
paragraph. It is immaterial because
even if the property sold is not the property involved in the litigation, one cannot sell his
property. And ART.1177 as to not prejudice the right of X since X is also another creditor.

2. As house at levereza street was attached by the court.A sold his house at 22 san Miguel
street to B.after the attachementon the first house had been made. C, a creditor of
A,now says that the sale is presumed fraudulent.A, counters by saying that there is no
such presumption because after all,the house which had been attached was not the one
sold to B.Is A justified?

Answer: No,A is not justified. according to ART.1387 2
nd
paragraph. The law says that the
attachment need not to be the property alienated.
Group 5.

#1: NO. Defense should not be sustained.

What: Performance left at the WILL of the debtor

Articles: 1180, 1182, 1197 - fixing of the period is with the court

#2: NO. Bank is NOT liable. See JURADO page 341, Article 1293, problem #2
Group 6.






Answer: Art. 1314
Group 7.

Group 8.
Group 8 Problem: Braganza vs. Villa Abrille. (p.420 sa book ni Jurado)

Related Articles:
Art. 1327 - Persons incapacitated to give consent
Art. 1222 - Defenses Available to Solidary Debtor
Art. 1399
plus Art 1391. compare also with the case of mercado vs espiritu
Group 9.

Group 10.