MIDTERM EXAMINATION

Obligations and Contracts

April 27, 2018

Instructions: Answer briefly and concisely. Cite your legal basis for your answers. Avoid
markings and observe proper margins. (CAVEAT: ANYONE CAUGHT CHEATING WILL
AUTOMATICALLY FAIL THE SUBJECT.)

GOOD LUCK!

-I-

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. (3 % each)

-II-

Jeanan sold a parcel of the land to Asme for 240,000 payable in installment of
20,000 a year. The land was delivered to B who obtained ownership thereof. After Asme
had paid 200,000, she could no longer continuing paying in view of financial reverses but
she was willing to pay the balance of 40,000 if given more time. Thereupon, Jeanan sued
for rescission under Article 1191. If you were the judge, would you grant rescission? (8 %)

-III-

Briefly distinguish the following: (a) Period vs. Condition; (b) Obligation vs.
Contract; (c) Dacion en Pago vs. Barter; (d) Solidary Obligation vs. Joint Obligation (3%
each)

-IV-

On July 1, 2008, Elfie 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, 2011, 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. Elfie
refused to pay the increased rate and an action for unlawful detainer was filed against
her. Will the action prosper? Why? (8 %)

-V-

Give the instances where the debtor loses the right to make use of the period. (10
%)

-VI-

a. D borrowed 20,000 from C payable on or before August 30, 2017. Before the
arrival of the due date, C agreed to the promise of B to pay C if B wants. Can C insist that
B pay not later than August 30, 2017? (7%)

b. Suppose in the same problem, D obliges himself to pay C 10,000 after C has paid
his obligation to T. Is the obligation valid? (7%)

-VII-

On March 1, 2018, Godfrey sold Alex his black Isuzu MUX. It was agreed that
payment and delivery were to be made on March 31. But on March 15, Godfrey delivered
the car and Alex paid for said car. Realizing that he needs the car for a few more days,
Godfrey demanded that Alex return the car. Alex refused. Godfrey now went to the court
of law and demanded rescission. Should Alex return the car plus damages and should
Godfrey return the price plus interest? (8 %)

-VIII-

Romaisah sued Lailanie for damages because the latter had failed to deliver the
antique Mercedes Benz car Romaisah had purchased from Lailanie, which was by
agreement due for delivery on December 31, 2013. Lailanie, in her answer to Romaisah's
complaint, said Romaisah's claim has no basis for the suit, because as the car was being
driven to be delivered to Romaisah on January 1, 2014, a reckless truck driver had
rammed into the Mercedes Benz. The trial court dismissed Romaisah's complaint, saying
Lailanie's obligation had indeed, been extinguished by force majeure. Is the trial court
correct? (7%)

-IX-

a. Give the instances when fortuitous events DO NOT extinguish obligation? (6%)
b. There are seven (7) instances where the law allows partial performance to
extinguish obligations. Give at least four (4). (8%)

-X-

Rasad is obliged to give an Iphone 4 to Abdullah. However, Rasad have many

Iphone 6 in his possession but does not have an Iphone 4 so he delivered and Iphone 6
instead to Abdullah. The Iphone 6 which is much better and more expensive than the
Iphone 4. Upon learning that Rasad delivered an Iphone 6, Abdullah refused to accept it
and demanded Iphone 4. Due to this dispute, they approached their Sulutan for advice.
The Sulutan then advised that Rasad to deliver an Iphone 6 to Abdullah and compel him
to accept it instead of an Iphone 4 since the former is better. Is the Sulutan legally correct?
Explain. (7 %)

***NOTHING FOLLOWS***