1.

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?

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.

2. Kathleen owes Jerome Php 50,000 which she must pay on March 4, 2020. On March 3,
Kathleen was about to pay Jerome, when Caila, a thief, stole the money from
Kathleen. Can Kathleen use the defense that she was robbed by a thief in order not to
be in default of payment?
 No. Money is a generic thing, and the genus never perishes, hence, Kathleen the
defense would not prosper (sup. Art. 1165).

3. 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?
 A) [Version 1] Yes, the sale to the other person is valid. However, the buyer acquired
the property subject to a resolutory condition of Eva passing the 1998 Bar
Examinations. Hence, upon Eva's passing the Bar, the rights of the other buyer
terminated and Eva acquired ownership of the property.
A) [Version 2] Yes, the sale to the other person is valid, as the contract between
Manuel and Eva is a mere promise to sell and Eva has not acquired a real right over
the land assuming that there is a price stipulated in the contract for the contract to
be considered a sale and there was delivery or tradition of the thing sold.
B) No, she is not entitled to the rentals collected by Manuel because at the time they
accrued and were collected, Eva was not yet the owner of the property.

4. 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.
 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 (Art. 1180). 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 (Art. 1197).
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 (Art. 1182).
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.
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 (Art. 1185).

5. What is Estoppel?
 Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the
person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying
thereon (Art. 1431).

6. AB Corp. entered into a contract with XY Corp. whereby the former agreed to
construct the research and laboratory facilities of the latter. Under the terms of the
contract, AB Corp. agreed to complete the facility in 18 months, at the total contract
price of P10 million. XY Corp. paid 50% of the total contract price, the balance to be
paid upon completion of the work. The work stated immediately, but AB Corp. later
experienced work slippage because of labor unrest in his company. AB Corp.'s
employees claimed that they are not being paid on time; hence, the work slowdown.
As of the 17th month, work was only 45% completed. AB Corp. asked for extension of
time, claiming that its labor problems is a case of fortuitous event, but this was denied
by XY Corp. When it became certain that the construction could not be finished on
time, XY Corp. sent written notice cancelling the contract, and requiring AB Corp. to
immediately vacate the premises. Can the labor unrest be considered a fortuitous
event?
 Labor unrest is not a fortuitous event that will excuse AB Corporation from complying
with its obligation of constructing the research and laboratory facilities of XY
Corporation. The labor unrest, which may even be attributed in large part to AB
Corporation itself, is not the direct cause of non-compliance by AB Corporation. It is
independent of its obligation. It is similar to the failure of a DBP borrower to pay her
loan just because her plantation suffered losses due to the cadang-cadang disease. It
does not excuse compliance with the obligation (DBP v. Vda. de Moll, G.R. No. L-25802,
January 31, 1972).

7. What are the two (2) different types of Quasi-Contracts?

NEGOTIORUM GESTIO and SOLUTIO INDEBITI. NEGOTIORUM GESTIO is the juridical
relation which arises whenever a person voluntarily takes charge of the agency or
management of the business without any power or authority (Art. 2144). SOLUTIO
INDEBITI is the juridical relation which arises whenever a person unduly delivers a thing
thru mistake to another who has no right to demand it (Art. 2154)
8. Gab told Lizel that he is selling his only sports car for Php 500,000. Lizel saw the
bargain, thus she bought it. Gab did not stipulate nor inform Lizel that the selling price
did not include the sports car’s accessories and accessions. At the time of the delivery,
Sean, a car mechanic, will remove the sports car’s accessories and accessions. Can Lizel
go to Court and demand that the accessions and accessories not be removed from the
sports car?

Yes. Lizel can go to Court and demand that the accessions and accessories of the sports
car be not removed from it because the law provides that the obligation to deliver a
determinate thing include that of delivering all its accessions and accessories, even
though they may not have been mentioned (Art. 1166).

9. Four foreign medical students rented the apartment of Thelma for a period of one
year. After one semester, three of them returned to their home country and the
fourth transferred to a boarding house. Thelma discovered that they left unpaid
telephone bills in the total amount of P80, 000.00. The lease contract provided that
the lessees shall pay for the telephone services in the leased premises. Thelma
demanded that the fourth student pay the entire amount of the unpaid telephone
bills, but the latter is willing to pay only one fourth of it. Who is correct? Why?
 The fourth student is correct. His liability is only joint, hence, pro rata. There is solidary
liability only when the obligation expressly so states or when the law or nature of the
obligation requires solidarity (Art. 1207). The contract of lease in the problem does not,
in any way, stipulate solidarity.

10. Joey, Jovy and Jojo are solidary debtors under a loan obligation of P300, 000.00 which
has fallen due. The creditor has, however, condoned Jojo's entire share in the debt.
Since Jovy has become insolvent, the creditor makes a demand on Joey to pay the
debt.

A) How much, if any, may Joey be compelled to pay?

B) To what extent, if at all, can Jojo be compelled by Joey to contribute to such
payment?
A) Joey can be compelled to pay only the remaining balance of P200.000, in view of the
remission of Jojo's share by the creditor (Art. 1219).
B) Jojo can be compelled by Joey to contribute P50.000 Art. 1217. par. 3, Civil Code
provides. "When one of the solidary debtors cannot, because of his insolvency,
reimburse his share to the debtor paying the obligation, such share shall be borne by
all his co- debtors, in proportion to the debt of each."

Since the insolvent debtor's share which Joey paid was P100,000, and there are only
two remaining debtors - namely Joey and Jojo - these two shall share equally the
burden of reimbursement. Jojo may thus be compelled by Joey to contribute
P50.000.00.