MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY.
URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
BAR QUESTION (2015):
How is a civil obligation distinguished from a
natural obligation? Give an example of a natural
obligation.
ANSWER: (UP)
Civil obligations give a right of action to compel their
performance. Natural obligations, not being based on
positive law but on equity and natural law, do not
grant a right of action to enforce their performance,
but after voluntary fulfillment by the obligor, they
authorize the retention of what has been delivered on
rendered by reason thereof.
Example of a natural obligation (one example out of
any of the following):
1. When a right to sue upon a civil obligation
has lapsed by extinctive prescription, the
obligor who voluntarily performs the
contract cannot recover what he has
delivered or the value of the service he has
rendered.
2. When without the knowledge or against the
will of, the debtor a third person pays a debt
which the obligor is not legally bound to pay
because the action thereon has prescribed,
but the debtor later voluntarily reimburses
the third person, the obligor cannot recover
what he has paid.
3. 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, after the annulment of the contract
voluntarily returns the whole thing or price
received, notwithstanding the fact that he
has not been benefited thereby, there is no
right to demand the thing; or price thus
returned.
4. 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.
5. When, after an action to enforce a civil
obligation has failed, the defendant
voluntarily performs the obligation, he
cannot demand the return of what he has
delivered or the payment of the value of the
service he has rendered,
6. When a testate or intestate heir voluntarily
pays a debt of the decedent exceeding the
value of the property which he received by
will or by the law of intestacy from the
estate of the deceased, the payment is valid
and cannot be rescinded by the payer.
7. When a will is declared void because it has
not been executed in accordance with the
formalities required by law, but one of the
intestate heirs, after the settlement of the
debts of the deceased, pays a legacy in
compliance with a clause in the defective
will, the payment is effective and
irrevocable.
Atty. U:
- Kapag sinabing ―distinguish‖ use only 1 factor
or parameter. Hindi mo pwede sabihin na ―Si
Juan ay gwapo, si Pedro ay mayaman.‖
- Do not go to the similarities. Otherwise, ang
tanong sana ay ―compare and contrast‖
ANSWER:
As to Enforceability:
Civil Obligation grants a right of action to demand
fulfillment; but a Natural Obligation does not grant a
right of action to demand fulfillment. (To complete
the rule: However, even if the obligation is a Natural
Obligation, if there is a voluntary fulfillment of such
obligation, that will give the creditor the right to
retain what was paid to him or what was delivered.)
As to the Basis:
The basis of a Civil Obligation is a man-made law or
a positive law. On the other hand, Natural
Obligations are based on natural law and equity.
Give an example of a Natural Obligation.
ANSWER:
The most known example of a Natural Obligation is
an obligation where the right of action has already
prescribed. In Art. 1231, Prescription is one of the
modes of extinguishment. In other words, the Civil
obligation is extinguished, however, it is converted to
a Natural Obligation by Prescription.
1|P age
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
Atty. U:
Kapag sinabing ―example‖ lang, mukhang isa lang
ang hinihingi. Wag mo ubusin ang pito! Sayang ang
oras mo  Pero kapag sinabing ―examples: tingnan
ang points allotted. Kapag 5%, lahat ng alam mo,
ubusin mo na kasi 5%! 
BAR QUESTION (2015):
Sara borrowed P50,000.00 from Julia and orally
promised to pay it within six months. When Sara
tried to pay her debt on the 8th month, Julia
demanded the payment of interest of 12% per
annum because of Sara's delay in payment. Sara
paid her debt and the interest claimed by Julia.
After rethinking, Sara demanded back from Julia
the amount she had paid as interest. Julia claims
she has no obligation to return the interest paid by
Sara because it was a natural obligation which
Sara voluntarily performed and can no longer
recover. Do you agree? Explain. (4%)
ANSWER: (UP)
No, I do not agree with Julia. For a creditor to be
entitled to compensatory interest, the debtor must be
in delay. As a rule, in order for delay to exist,
demand must have been made. In this case, there was
no demand made upon the expiration of the 6-month
period; thus, Sara cannot be considered in delay, and
is not liable to pay compensatory interest. There
being no obligation to pay compensatory interest,
Julia must return the interest mistakenly paid since
she was not entitled thereto, and delivery was made
merely through mistake. If something is received
when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly
delivered through mistake, the obligation to return
arises (Art. 2154, Civil Code)
Atty. U:
This pertains to a loan. There are 2 kinds of interests
to which the creditor may be entitled.
1. Compensatory Interest: compensation for
the use; must be expressly stipulated in
writing
- In the case at bar, hindi
expressly stipulated in writing
kaya the creditor is not entitled
to Compensatory interest
2. Interest by way of Damages because the
debtor is already in delay: no need for
stipulation in writing; as long as may
demand, which can be oral demand, the
debtor may be in delay therefore kapag
monetary ang obligation, ang liability for
damages computed sa interest lang.
- In the case at bar, she is also
not entitled to interest by way
of damages because when Julia
demanded payment on the 8th
month, bayad kaagad, walang
delay. As a rule, no demand,
no delay.
BAR QUESTION (1992):
In fear of reprisals from lawless elements
besieging his barangay, X abandoned his
fishpond, fled to Manila and left for Europe.
Seeking that the fish in the fishpond were ready
for harvest, Y, who is in the business of managing
fishponds on a commission basis, took possession
of the property, harvested the fish and sold the
entire harvest to Z. Thereafter, Y borrowed
money from W and used the money to buy new
supplies of fish fry and to prepare the fishpond for
the next crop.
a. What is the Juridical relation between X
and Y during X’s absence?
b. Upon the return of X to the barangay,
what are the obligations of Y to X as
regards the contract with Z?
c. Upon X’s return, what are the obligations
of X as regards Y’s contract with W?
d. What legal effects will result if X
expressly ratifies Y’s management and
what would be the obligations of X in
favor of Y? Explain all your answers.
ANSWER: (UP)
a. The Juridical relation is that of the quasi-
contract of ―negotiorum gestio‖. Y is the
―gestor‖ or ―officious manager‖ and X is the
―owner‖ (Art. 2144, Civil Code).
b. Y must render an account of his operations
and deliver to X the price he received for the
sale of the harvested fish (Art. 2145, Civil
Code).
c. X must pay the loan obtained by Y from W
because X must answer for obligations
contracted with 3rd persons in the interest of
the owner (Art. 2150, Civil Code).
2|P age
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
d. Express ratification by X provides the
effects of an express agency and X is liable
to pay the commissions habitually received
by the gestor as manager (Art. 2149, Civil
Code).
Atty. U:
This is a bad example of Negotiorum Gestio:
The owner of the house, together with the other
members of the family, left the house for a
vacation. But that very night that they left the
house, the house was burned. However, the
neighbors were able to save the house from total
destruction.
Why?
1. As to the Nature: Negotiorum Gestio would
arise if the person, known as the ―gestor‖ or
―officious manager‖, takes charge of
management of the business or property of
another. Kung sinave mo lang ang bahay na
nasusunog, did you take charge of the
management of anything? No.
2. As to the Requisites: For Negotiorum Gestio
to arise, one of the requisite is that the
property or business must be neglected or
abandoned. Nagbakasyon lang sila. They
never neglected nor abandoned the house.
Under the Family Code, the presumption of
abandonment arises only after 3 months. It is
even a disputable presumption.
3. This particular scenario is covered by a
provision in Quasi-Contract (Art. 2168).
Example dapat ito ng Quasi-Contract falling
under Other Quasi-Contract, not
Negotiorum Gestio.
BAR QUESTION (2004):
DPO went to a store to buy a pack of cigarettes
worth P225.00 only. He gave vendor, RRA, a
P500-peso bill. The vendor gave him the pack plus
P375.00 change. Was there a discount, an
oversight, or an error in the amount given? What
would be DPO’s duty, if any, in case of an excess
in the amount of change given by the vendor?
How is this situational relationship between DPO
and RRA denominated? Explain. (5%)
ANSWER: (UP)
There was an error in the amount of change given by
RRA. This is a case of Solution Indebiti in that DPO
received something that is not due him. He has the
obligation to return the P100.00; otherwise, he will
unjustly enrich himself at the expense of RRA. (Art.
2154, Civil Code)
BAR QUESTION (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? (2%)
ANSWER: (UP)
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 done) and not of the debtor
(the donor).
Atty. U:
This is a Conditional Obligation kasi bibigyan lang
siya ng car kapag pumasa, and passing the bar exam
is not certain to happen, so it is a condition.
Ang mali ng marami, to be potestative daw dapat
dependent upon the sole will of the debtor. Hindi
totoo yan. Basta dependent upon the sole will of any
of the parties, potestative nayan. Pero, kapag
dependent solely upon the will of the debtor, the
obligation may be void.
Therefore, iisipin mo, is 1182 applicable as the
relevant provision? No, because passing the bar
exam, whoever the examinee, is not potestative. It
does not depend solely upon the will of anyone.
Passing the bar exam is a Mixed Condition. 1182 will
not apply because the debtor is the grandfather. Hindi
naman si lolo ang kukuha ng bar exam.
3|P age
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
BAR QUESTION (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?
(3%)
ANSWER: (UP)
a. Yes, the sale to the other person is a valid
sale with a resolutory condition because
what operates as a suspensive condition for
Eva operates a resolutory condition for the
buyer.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
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 examination. Hence,
upon Eva’s passing the Bar, the rights of the
other buyer terminated and Eva acquired
ownership of the property.
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.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Assuming that Eva is the one entitled to buy
the house and lot, she is not entitled to the
rentals collected by Manuel before she
passed the bar examinations. Whether it is a
contract of sale or a contract to sell
prestations are deemed imposed A for the
seller to deliver the object sold and the buyer
to pay the price. Before the happening of the
condition, the fruits of the thing and the
interests on the money are deemed to have
been mutually compensated under Article
1187.
BAR QUESTION (2017):
Zeny and Nolan were best friends for a long time
already. Zeny borrowed 310,000.00 from Nolan,
evidenced by a promissory note whereby Zeny
promised to pay the loan “once his means permit.”
Two months later, they had a quarrel that broke
their long-standing friendship.
Nolan seeks your advice on how to collect from
Zeny despite the tenor of the promissory note.
What will your advice be? Explain your answer.
(3%)
ANSWER: (Atty. U)
Applying Art. 1197 of the Civil Code, I will advice
Nolan to go to Court to fix the period since what was
stipulated in the promissory note was that Zeny will
pay the loan ―once his means permit‖.
Atty. U:
Q: Before the arrival of the period, can the debtor
compel the creditor to accept?
A: Of course not! Pero if the creditor refused to
accept without just cause, ang remedy mo ay
Consignation. Pero hindi mo siya pwede pilitin.
Hindi mo pwede isaksak sa baga niya 
Q: Before the arrival of the period, can the creditor
validly refuse to accept?
A: The law presumes that when there is a period, that
period was fixed for the benefit of both the parties.
Pero this presumption is clearly only a disputable
presumption because the law is clear that unless it is
clear from the circumstances that the period was
fixed solely for the benefit of one of them.
4|P age
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
BAR QUESTION (1984):
On January 1, 1983, A borrowed P10,000 from B
payable on December 1, 1983. As security
therefor, A pledged his car to B with an
agreement that B could use it. On June 30, 1983, A
offered to pay the loan in full and asked for the
return of his car. Can A compel B to accept the
payment and to return the car? Why?
ANSWER: (UP)
No. Under the agreement with A, B is authorized to
use the car. The creditor may use the thing pledged
with the consent of the owner (Art. 2104). A period
for the payment of the obligation was also stipulated.
Under Article 1196, it is presumed that whenever a
period is designated, it is presumed to have been
established for the benefit of both the creditors and
the debtor. Hence, A cannot prepay the loan and
demand the return of the pledged property until the
term had arrived.
Atty. U:
Q: Assuming for the sake of argument that the period
was fixed solely for the benefit of the debtor, before
the arrival of the period, is it possible that the creditor
can validly demand for the payment or performance
of the obligation?
A: Yes, because under certain circumstances in 1198,
a debtor may lose his right to make use of the period.
Pag nangyari ang incident nayan, the creditor can
validly demand of the performance even before the
arrival of the period because the debtor loses his right
to make use of the period.
BAR QUESTION (1984):
A obtained from B a loan payable within a year.
As security for its repayment, A mortgaged his
uninsured house.
Three months after the loan was given, A ’s house
was gutted by an accidental fire. Thereupon, B
demanded immediate payment from A, who
refused to pay contending that the loan was for a
one-year period.
Is A’s contention valid? Explain.
ANSWER: (UP)
No. Under Art. 1198, the debtor shall lose every right
to make use of a period when the securities disappear
through a fortuitous event. A has to give satisfactory
substitute collateral.
Atty. U:
No. In this case, the period was fixed solely for the
benefit of the debtor because ang nakalagay ay
―within a year‖. Based on the facts, the house was
gutted by fire, mukhang fortuitous event. Did the
debtor loses his right to make use of the period? YES.
It is one of the scenarios enumerated in 1198.
BAR QUESTION (2008):
Eduardo was granted a loan by XYZ Bank for the
purpose of improving a building which XYZ
leased from him. Eduardo, executed the
promissory note ("PN") in favor of the bank, with
his friend Recardo as co-signatory. In the PN, they
both acknowledged that they are "individually
and collectively" liable and waived the need for
prior demand.
To secure the PN, Recardo executed a real estate
mortgage on his own property. When Eduardo
defaulted on the PN, XYZ stopped payment of
rentals on the building on the ground that legal
compensation had set in. Since there was still a
balance due on the PN after applying the rentals,
XYZ foreclosed the real estate mortgage over
Recardo's property.
Recardo opposed the foreclosure on the ground
that he is only a co-signatory; that no demand was
made upon him for payment, and assuming he is
liable, his liability should not go beyond half the
balance of the loan. Further, Recardo said that
when the bank invoked compensation between the
reantals and the amount of the loan, it amounted
to a new contract or novation, and had the effect
of extinguishing the security since he did not give
his consent (as owner of the property under the
real estate mortgage) thereto.
a. Can XYZ Bank validly assert legal
compensation? (2%)
b. Can Recardo's property be foreclosed to
pay the full balance of the loan? (2%)
c. Does Recardo have basis under the Civil
Code for claiming that the original
contract was novated? (2%)
5|P age
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
ANSWER: (UP)
a. Yes, XYZ Bank can validly assert legal
compensation. In the present case, all of the
elements of legal compensation are present:
(1) XYZ Bank is the creditor of Eduardo
while Eduardo is the lessor of XYZ Bank;
(2) both debts consist in a sum of money, or
if the things due are consumable, they be of
the same kind, and also of the same quality
if the latter has been stated; (3) the two debts
be due; (4) they be liquidated and
demandable, and (5) over neither of them
there be any retention or controversy,
commenced by third persons and
communicated in due time to the debtor
(Art. 1279, Civil Code).
b. Yes, Recardo's property can be foreclosed to
pay the full balance of the loan because
when he signed as co-signatory in the
promissory note, he acknowledged he is
solidarily liable with Eduardo. In solidary
obligations, a creditor has the right to
demand full payment of the obligation from
any of the solidary debtors (Art. 1207, Civil
Code).
c. No. Recardo has no basis for claiming
novation of the original contract when the
bank invoked compensation because there
was simply partial compensation (Art. 1290,
Civil Code) and this would not bar the bank
from recovering the remaining balance of
the obligation.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. In order that an obligation may be
extinguished by another, it is imperative that
it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or
that the old and new obligations be on every
point compatible with each other. Novation
is never presumed (Art. 1292, Civil Code).
BAR QUESTION (MCQ):
Buko, Fermin and Toti bound themselves
solidarily to pay Ayee the sum of P 10,000.00.
When the obligation became due and demandable,
Ayee sued Buko for the payment of the P
10,000.00. Buko moved to dismiss on the ground
that there was failure to implead Fermin and Toti
who are indispensable parties. Will the motion to
dismiss prosper? Why?
a) Yes, because Fermin and Toti should have
been impleaded as their obligation is
solidary.
b) No, because the creditor may proceed
against any one of the solidary debtors or
some or all of them simultaneously.
c) No, because a motion to dismiss is a
prohibited pleading.
d) Yes, because Fermin and Toti should also
pay their share of the obligation.
BAR QUESTION (1998):
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? [3%]
ANSWER: (UP)
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, Civil Code)
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.
6|P age
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
BAR QUESTION (MCQ)
Rudolf borrowed P1 million from Rodrigo and
Fernando who acted as solidary creditors. When
the loan matured, Rodrigo wrote a letter to
Rudolf, demanding payment of the loan directly to
him. Before Rudolf could comply, Fernando went
to see him personally to collect and he paid him.
Did Rudolf make a valid payment?
a. No, since Rudolf should have split the
payment between Rodrigo and Fernando.
b. No, since Rodrigo, the other solidary
creditor, already made a prior demand
for payment from Rudolf.
c. Yes, since the payment covers the whole
obligation.
d. Yes, since Fernando was a solidary creditor,
payment to him extinguished the obligation.
BAR QUESTION (2015):
A. Iya and Betty owed Jun P500,000.00 for
advancing their equity in a corporation they
joined as incorporators. Iya and Betty bound
themselves solidarily liable for the debt.
Later, Iya and Jun became sweethearts so Jun
condoned the debt of P500,000.00. May lya
demand from Betty P250,000.00 as her share
in the debt? Explain with legal basis. (2%)
B. Juancho, Don and Pedro borrowed
P150,000.00 from their friend Cita to put up
an internet cafe orally promising to pay her
the full amount after one year. Because of
their lack of business know-how, their
business collapsed. Juancho and Don ended
up penniless but Pedro was able to borrow
money and put up a restaurant which did
well. Can Cita demand that Pedro pay the
entire obligation since he, together with the
two others, promised to pay the amount in full
after one year? Defend your answer. (2%)
ANSWER: (UP)
A. No, Iya may not demand reimbursement
from Betty. The remission of the whole
obligation, obtained by one of the solidary
debtors, does not entitle him or her to
reimbursement from his co-debtors (Art.
1220, Civil Code).
B. No, Cita may not demand payment of the
entire obligation from Pedro. The
concurrence of two or more creditors or two
or more debtors in one and the same
obligation does not imply that each one of
the former has a right to demand, or that
each one of the latter is bound to render,
entire compliance with the prestation. There
is a solidary liability only when the
obligation expressly so states, or when the
law or the nature of the obligation requires
solidarity (Art. 1207, Civil Code).
In this case, there is no indication that they
bound themselves solidarily to pay Cita, nor
does the law or nature of the obligation
require solidarity. Hence, Juancho, Don and
Pedro’s obligation is joint, and Cita can only
demand payment of 1/3 of the obligation
from Pedro, which is presumed to be his
share in the obligation in the absence of
stipulation to the contrary (Art. 1208, Civil
Code).
Atty. U:
B. Unless these people bound themselves
solidarily when they borrowed money,
Pedro cannot be compelled to pay the entire
amount because if they did not bind
themselves solidarily, the obligation will be
joint. There is no law, as far as laws are
concerned, requiring debtors to be help
solidarily liable neither does the nature of
the obligation requires solidarily.
BAR QUESTION (2016):
Ellen entrusted her title over the lot where she is
residing to Patrick, her nephew, for safekeeping
because of her poor eyesight. Patrick, a gambler,
prepared a Special Power of Attorney
empowering him to mortgage the lot. Ellen's
signature was forged. With the help of Julia who
represented herself as Ellen, Mega Bank granted a
loan to Patrick secured by a mortgage on Ellen's
lot. Due to non-payment, Mega Bank foreclosed
the mortgage and was declared the highest bidder.
Title was later registered in the name of the bank.
When Ellen was notified that she should vacate
the premises, she filed a complaint to nullify the
loan with mortgage, the auction sale and the title
of Mega Bank on the ground that the bank is not a
mortgagee in good faith. Decide the case with
reasons. (5%)
7|P age
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
ANSWER: (Atty. U)
Decide the case in favor of the depositor. From the
circumstances, the bank did not exercise the highest
degree of diligence.
BAR QUESTION (2017):
Jovencio operated a school bus to ferry his two
sons and five of their schoolmates from their
houses to their school, and back. The parents of
the five schoolmates paid for the service. One
morning, Porfirio, the driver, took a short cut on
the way to school because he was running late,
and drove across an unmanned railway crossing.
At the time, Porfirio was wearing earphones
because he loved to hear loud music while driving.
As he crossed the railway tracks, a speeding PNR
train loudly blared its horn to warn Porfirio, but
the latter did not hear the horn because of the
loud music. The train inevitably rammed into the
school bus. The strong impact of the collision
between the school bus and the train resulted in
the instant death of one of the classmates of
Jovencio’s younger son.
The parents of the fatality sued Jovencio for
damages based on culpa contractual alleging that
Jovencio was a common carrier; Porfirio for being
negligent; and the PNR for damages based
on culpa aquiliana.
Jovencio denied being a common carrier. He
insisted that he had exercised the diligence of a
good father of a family in supervising Porfirio,
claiming that the latter had had no history of
negligence or recklessness before the fatal
accident.
a. Did his operation of the school bus service
for a limited clientele render Jovencio a
common carrier? Explain your answer.
(3%)
b. In accordance with your answer to the
preceding question, state the degree of
diligence to be observed by Jovencio, and
the consequences thereof. Explain your
answer. (3%)
ANSWER: (Atty. U)
a. Yes, kasi ginawa niyang pampasahero yung
kanyang sasakyan.
b. As expressly provided in the Civil Code, he
should have exercised extraordinary
diligence as a common carrier.
Atty. U:
Q: Is there a need to know the gravity of the
negligent act?
A: It may be relevant under certain circumstances,
like kung ang gusto mo ay magkaroon ng award for
Moral Damages at ang source ng obligation ay
contract. In contracts, nakapa hirap mag claim ng
Moral Damages because it has to be proven that there
was bad faith on the part of the party. Kaya if the
party to this contract ay merely megligent, mukhang
hindi mag aaward ng Moral Damages. Pero since
gross negligence amounts to fraud, there can be a
valid award for Moral Damages under a contract.
Q: If the seller delivered the thing, which is the
subject matter of the contract 3 months ago, to this
day the buyer have not yet paid, pero there was no
demand from the seller for him to pay. Is sthe buyer
already in delay?
A: As held by the Supreme Court, Art. 1169 is
subject to the stipulations of the parties. Of course, if
walang stipulations as to when the buyer should pay,
liable na siya for interest because in delay na siya
under 1169.
BAR QUESTION (2000):
Kristina brought her diamond ring to a jewelry
shop for cleaning. The Jewelry shop undertook to
return the ring by February 1, 1999. When the
said date arrived, the jewelry shop informed
Kristina that the job was not yet finished. They
asked her to return five days after. On February
6.1999, Kristina went to the shop to claim the ring,
but she was informed that the same was stolen by
a thief who entered the shop the night before.
Kristina filed an action for damages against the
jewelry shop which put up the defense of force
majeure. Will the action prosper or not? (5%)
ANSWER: (UP)
The action will prosper. Since the defendant was
already in default not having delivered the ring when
delivery was demanded by plaintiff at due date, the
defendant is liable for the loss of the thing and even
when the loss was due to force majeure.
8|P age
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
Atty. U:
Q: Stolen by a thief per se, is that a fortuitous event?
A: It will depend on the circumstances. Maski ang
robbery, there is no such thing as robbery is a
fortuitous event per se.
Q: Even assuming for the sake of argument na itong
pagnanakaw nung ring is a fortuitous event, does that
exempt him or the jewelry shop from liability for the
loss of the ring?
A: If you will consider the general rule, ang sagot ay
exempted siya kung fortuitous event. But there are
exceptions to 1174.
1. By stipulation – wala naman stipulation
2. The nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk – wala din
3. The law so provides – Art. 1165
In 1165, the obligation to deliver a determinate thing,
even if such thing is lost due to a fortuitous event, the
debtor will be liable for the loss if at the time of the
loss, he was already in delay.
Q: So in the problem, was the jewelry shop already
in delay?
A: Yes, kasi ang unang promise nila ay on February
1. Nung bumalik nung Feb. 1, hindi pa daw tapos. Eh
di in delay na sila. Kaya nung nawala yung ring after
Feb. 1, 1165 applies. Liable sila despite the loss for
fortuitous event.
BAR QUESTION (1986):
Mr. Mekanico leased some automobile repair
equipment to Mr. Masipag, who was opening his
auto repair shop. The lease agreement was
executed on February 15, 1985- It stipulated that
the period was one month only, at the expiration
of which Masipag was to return the equipment of
Mekanico. The equipment was delivered on
February 15, 1985. On March 15, 1985 Mekanico,
in a telephone call, asked Masipag to return the
leased property that same day. Because his truck
broke down, Masipag was unable to comply. Early
the next morning, the equipment was burned in an
accidental fire that started in a nearby restaurant
and gutted Masipag’s auto repair shop. Mekanico
seeks to hold Masipag liable for the value of the
lost property plus damages on the ground that he
did not return it as agreed upon. Is Mekanico’s
claim tenable? Explain.
ANSWER: (UP)
Mekanico’s claim in untenable.
The fire of accidental origin which destroyed the
equipment which is the object of the obligation in the
instant case is clearly fortuitous in character.
Therefore, the doctrine of fortuitous events is
applicable. The debtor or obligator, Masipag, is not
liable. In other words, the obligation is extinguished.
The fact that the loss took place on March 16, 1985,
which is one day after Mekanico had made a demand
upon Masipag to return the leased property, does not
mean that the loss took place after the obligor had
already incurred in delay, It must be noted that the
lease agreement was executed on February 15, 1985,
Obviously, on March 16, 1985. Masipag had not yet
incurred in delay.
Atty. U:
A reminder and a follow up is NOT a demand.
BAR QUESTION (1996):
In December 1985, Salvador and the Star
Semiconductor Company (SSC) executed a Deed
of Conditional Sale wherein the former agreed to
sell his 2,000 square meter lot in Cainta, Rizal, to
the latter for the price of P I,000,000.00, payable P
100,000.00 down, and the balance 60 days after
the squatters in the property have been removed.
If the squatters are not removed within six
months, the P100,000.00 down payment shall be
returned by the vendor to the vendee.
Salvador filed ejectment suits against the
squatters, but in spite of the decisions in his favor,
the squatters still would not leave. In August,
1986, Salvador offered to return the P 100,000.00
down payment to the vendee, on the ground that
he is unable to remove the squatters on the
property. SSC refused to accept the money and
demanded that Salvador execute a deed of
absolute sale of the property in its favor, at which
time it will pay the balance of the price.
Incidentally, the value of the land had doubled by
that time.
Salvador consigned the P 100,000.00 in court, and
filed an action for rescission of the deed of
conditional sale, plus damages.
Will the action prosper? Explain.
9|P age
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]

ANSWER: (UP) court shall order the obligations to be performed at

No, the action will not prosper. The action for A’s expense.
rescission may be brought only by the aggrieved
party to the contract. Since it was Salvador who
failed to comply with his conditional obligation, he is Atty. U:
not the aggrieved party who may file the action/for As to the TV set, B cannot compel A to deliver it. B’s
rescission but the Star Semiconductor Company. The remedy is to ask somebody else to deliver such kind
company, however, is not opting to rescind the of thing at the cost of the debtor plus damages.
contract but has chosen to waive Salvador's (Substitute Performance)
compliance with the condition which it can do under
Art. 1545, Civil Code. As to the refrigerator, substitute performance is not
applicable. The remedy is specific performance if it is
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: still possible to perform the obligation.
The action for rescission will not prosper. The buyer
has not committed any breach, let alone a substantial As to the piano, B cannot compel A to repair the
or serious one, to warrant the rescission/resolution piano. Not even the Supreme Court can compel A to
sought by the vendor. On the contrary, it is the repair the piano because that would violate his right
vendor who appears to have failed to comply with the against involuntary servitude. The remedy of B is to
condition imposed by the contract the fulfillment of have the task done by a 3rd person at the cost of A
which would have rendered the obligation to pay the plus damages.
balance of the purchase price demandable. Further,
far from being unable to comply with what is
incumbent upon it, i.e., pay the balance of the price -
the buyer has offered to pay it even without the
vendor having complied with the suspensive
condition attached to the payment of the price, thus
waiving such condition as well as the 60-day term in
its favor. The stipulation that the P100,000.00 down
payment shall be returned by the vendor to the
vendee if the squatters are not removed within six
months, is also a covenant for the benefit of the
vendee, which the latter has validly waived by
implication when it offered to pay the balance of the
purchase price upon the execution of a deed of
absolute sale by the vendor. (Art. 1545, Civil Code)

BAR QUESTION (1983):

A bound himself to deliver to B a 21-inch 1983
model TV set, and the 13 cubic feet White
Westinghouse refrigerator, with Motor No.
WERT-385, which B saw in A’s store, and to
repair B's piano. A did none of these things.

May the court compel A to deliver the TV set and

the refrigerator and repair the piano? Why? If
not, what, relief may the court grant B? Why?

ANSWER: (UP)
Yes, in so far as his obligation to deliver' the
Westinghouse, refrigerator is concerned, the thing to
be given being determinate, but no in so far as the 2
other obligations are concerned, one being an
obligation to give an indeterminate thing, and the
other being an obligation to do. In these 2 cases, the

10 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
MODES OF EXTINGUISHMENT
BAR QUESTION (2015):
X and Y are partners in a shop offering portrait
painting. Y provided the capital and the
marketing while X was the portrait artist. They
accepted the P50,000.00 payment of Kyla to do
her portrait but X passed away without being able
to do it. Can Kyla demand that Y deliver the
portrait she had paid for because she was dealing
with the business establishment and not with the
artist personally? Why or why not? (3%)
ANSWER: (UP)
No, Kyla cannot validly demand that Y deliver the
portrait. Although she may be correct that it is the
partnership that she contracted with, Kyla cannot
demand that Y deliver the portrait if the intention of
the parties was that the portrait should be done by X
and this is precisely why the obligation was
constituted. With the death of X, the obligation was
extinguished because it is a purely personal
obligation which is extinguished upon the death of
the obligor.
Finally, the obligation is an obligation to do. To
oblige the surviving partner, Y, to deliver the
painting (to do the painting) would be tantamount to
an involuntary servitude, which is against the law.
BAR QUESTION (MCQ):
X borrowed money from a bank, secured by a
mortgage on the land of Y, his close friend. When
the loan matured, Y offered to pay the bank but it
refused since Y was not the borrower. Is the
bank’s action correct?
a. Yes, since X, the true borrower, did not give
his consent to Y’s offer to pay.
b. No, since anybody can discharge X’s
obligation to his benefit.
c. No, since Y, the owner of the collateral,
has an interest in the payment of the
obligation.
d. Yes, since it was X who has an obligation to
the bank.
BAR QUESTION (MCQ)
Asiong borrowed P1 million from a bank, secured
by a mortgage on his land. Without his consent,
his friend Boyong paid the whole loan. Since
Asiong benefited from the payment, can Boyong
compel the bank to subrogate him in its right as
mortgagee of Asiong's land?
a. No, but the bank can foreclose and pay
Boyong back.
b. No, since Boyong paid for Asiong’s loan
without his approval.
c. Yes, since a change of creditor took place by
novation with the bank’s consent.
d. Yes, since it is but right that Boyong be able
to get back his money and, if not, to
foreclose the mortgage in the manner of the
bank.
BAR QUESTION (1983):
A owes B P20.000 which became due and payable
last October 1, 1983. Oh that date, A offered B
P10,000 the only money he then had, but B
refused to accept the payment. A thereafter met
C, B’s 22-year old son, to whom he gave the
P10,000 with the request that he turn the money
over to B. The money was stolen while in C’s
possession.
Was B justified in refusing to accept the payment
of A? May he still recover the full amount of his
debt of P20.000? Why?
ANSWER: (UP)
Yes, the creditor cannot be compelled to receive
partial payments of the obligation due him, there
being no stipulation to the contrary.
B may still demand full payment of the sum due him.
The payment to his son, who does not appear to have
been authorized to receive it, is invalid, the creditor
not having received any benefit therefrom.
11 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
Atty. U:
Yes, B was justified in refusing to accept payment
because as a rule, the creditor cannot be bound to
accept partial payment.
Yes, B may still recover the full amount regardless of
payment to B’s son. B is not C. In this case there is
payment to a wrong party and none of the exceptions
provided under Art. 1241, i.e., there appears to be no
assignment of right to B’s son, B did not ratify the
payment, nor were there any conduct of B that would
lead A to believe that C had authority to receive
payment. Moreover, it was stated that the money was
stolen, thus, it cannot be said that the payment
redounded to the benefit of B.
Atty. U:
Art. 1249 and RA 8183 – Monetary Obligations
Q: Can a debtor be compelled to pay in a foreign
currency? Is it a valid obligation?
A: As to the validity, walang issue. Never in the
history of our laws na nagsabi na kapag ang utang is
in foreign currency, void ang utang ay hindi totoo
yan!
Pero as to the first question na can a debtor be
compelled to pay in a foreign currency, today the
answer is yes. That is because ang RA 529 which
amended Art. 1249 had already been amended by RA
8183.
In RA 529, lahat ng residents in this country who
would receive foreign currencies are required to
surrender the foreign currencies within 24 hours to
the Central Bank. Therefore, they cannot use the
money to pay their debts. Ang dapat nilang gawin ay
kunin ang pera na peso sa Central Bank at yun ang
ipambayad sa creditor. But that was before.
In RA 8183, in a way ibinalik na tayo sa 1249. If
there was a stipulation na ang bayaran ay in Japanese
money, then so be it. The debtor can be compelled to
pay in lapad. 
BAR QUESTION (1986):
Mr. Magaling obtained a judgment against Mr.
Mayaman in the amount of P500,000.00. A writ of
execution was issued pursuant to which various
personal properties of Mayaman were levied upon
by the sheriff. An auction sale was scheduled.
Before the appointed day of the auction,
Mayaman delivered to the sheriff a cashier’s
check of Far East Bank in the amount of
P200,000.00 and enough cash to cover the
remainder of the total amount due. Magaling
refused to accept the check and asked the sheriff
to proceed with the auction sale.
Did Magaling have the right to refuse the payment
of part of the obligation with a cashier’s check?
Explain.
ANSWER: (UP)
Magaling did not have the right to refuse the payment
of part of the obligation with a cashier’s check. The
Central Bank Act provides that a check which has
been cleared and credited to the account of the
creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to the
creditor in cash in an amount equal to the amount
credited to his account.
Analyzing the above provision, it is clear that the
cashier’s check of Far East Bank, a reputable bank,
and credited to the account of Mayaman has legal
tender power. Therefore, there was no basis for
Magaling in refusing payment of the obligation.
Atty. U:
Does this check have legal tender power? Kapag may
legal tender power ito, the creditor cannot validly
refuse.
Pero ang tanong, did Magaling had the right? No. this
waws asked in 1986. At that time, ang ruling ng
Supreme Court in the case of New Pacific Timber vs.
Seneris ay cashier’s check, manager’s check and
certified checks are good as cash. Therefore, a
creditor cannot validly refuse. Pero alam natin na
binago nayan ng Supreme Court.
In the 90s, bumalik na ang Supreme Court sa dati
nilang mga rulings na checks, no matter what kind,
do not have legal tender power. In other words, ang
legal tender nandun sa usapin kung dapat bang
tanggapin ng creditor or hindi. Pero ang checks
walang legal tender power.
Q: Pero kapag tinanggap na ng creditor ang check,
later on can he still claim na ang checks ay walang
legal tender power?
A: Hindi na pwede. Na-waive na niya yung right niya
to refuse dahil tinanggap niya. Nung tinanggap niya,
dapat pina-encash niya.
12 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
Pero kung today, same problem, did he had the right
to refuse? The answer is yes. Again, pana-panahon
lang yan. Ang batas, parang tao. Nagbabago rin yan.
BAR QUESTION (MCQ)
Anne owed Bessy P1 million due on October 1,
2011 but failed to pay her on due date. Bessy sent
a demand letter to Anne giving her 5 days from
receipt within which to pay. Two days after
receipt of the letter, Anne personally offered to
pay Bessy in manager's check but the latter
refused to accept the same. The 5 days lapsed.
May Anne’s obligation be considered
extinguished?
a. Yes, since Bessy’s refusal of the manager’s
check, which is presumed funded, amounts
to a satisfaction of the obligation.
b. No, since tender of payment even in cash,
if refused, will not discharge the
obligation without proper consignation in
court.
c. Yes, since Anne tendered payment of the
full amount due.
d. No, since a manager’s check is not
considered legal tender in the Philippines.
BAR QUESTION (MCQ):
Dina bought a car from Jai and delivered a check
in payment of the same. Has Dina paid the
obligation? Why?
a. No, not yet. The delivery of promissory
notes payable to order, or bills of
exchange or other mercantile documents
shall produce the effect of payment only
when they have been cashed, or when
through the fault of the creditor they have
been impaired.
b. Yes, because a check is a valid legal tender
of payment.
c. It depends. If the check is a manager’s check
or cashier’s check it will produce the effect
of payments. If it’s an ordinary check, no
payment.
d. Yes, because a check is as good as cash.
Atty. U:
Special Forms of Payment
1. Dation in Payment / Dacion en Pago
2. Application of Payment
3. Payment by Cession or Assignment
4. Consignation
Q: Is the consent of the parties required for the
obligation to be extinguished by these special forms
of payment?
A: As to the debtor, there is no question if he is the
one offering to pay, then that is consent. Though may
be viated, pero may consent pa rin.
Q: Ang question talaga nasa creditor. Is the consent
of the creditor required?
A: As far as Dation in Payment is concerned,
absolutely. In Dation in Payment, the debtor will
offer another thing instead of the thing to be
delivered.
In Application of Payment, the consent of the creditor
is also required because the only question in this form
of payment is to which debt the payment should be
applied. In other words, tinanggap ng creditor, yun
lang saan i-apply ang bayad nayan.
In Payment by Cession, is the consent of the creditor
required? Absolutely. The creditors would sell the
properties of the debtor. Ang extinguished would be
the Net proceeds. Necessarily, their consent is
obvious dahil kung ayaw nila, hindi sila magbebenta.
But in Consignation, is the consent of the creditor
required? Ang common na sagot dito, precisely
because the creditor refused to accept. Which is
wrong. That the creditor refused to accept goes into
another concept, not Consignation. Ang sinasabi na
that the creditor refused to accept ay doon sa Tender
of Payment hindi sa Consignation. In other words,
Tender of Payment is not the same as Consignation.
It may be required for the Consignation to be valid.
Q: May Consignation be valid without Tender of
Payment?
A: Definitely. There are 5 grounds for Consignation
which do not require Tender of Payment. In fact, iisa
lang ang ground for Consignation requiring Tender of
Payment, which is whether the creditor refuse to
13 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
accept without just cause. In all other grounds, hindi
kailangan.
Q: is the consent of the creditor required in
Consignation?
A: Hindi! Kasi even if the creditor refused to accept
what was delivered to the Court by way of
Consignation, the Court may determine the validity.
At pag sinabi ng Court na proper ang Consignation,
then the obligation will be extinguished by
Consignation without the consent of the creditor.
Q: In these special forms of payment, when one of
the parties delivered something to the other party, is
there transfer of ownership?
A: In Dation in Payment, there has to be transfer of
ownership because if the thing is delivered to the
creditor, but the creditor was only authorized to sell
then ownership did not pass upon delivery. Ginawa
mo lang ahente ang seller. Only possession is passed
to the agent.
In Application of Payment, is the ownership passed?
Definitely! Ang perang ipambabayad ng debtor will
be owned by the creditor. Again, ang relevant lang na
tanong ay to which debt should it be applied.
In Payment by Cession, ownership does not pass
upon delivery because the creditors are only
authorized to sell.
In Consignation, it depends kung tatanggapin ng
creditor or hindi. Kung hindi niya tanggapin, it will
depend on the determination of the Court kung valid
ang Consignation or hindi. Because if the Court will
ruile na hindi valid ang Consignation, there will be
no transfer of ownership. The property or the money
will remain the property of the debtor. Pero if the
Court declared the Consignation to be valid, yung
judgment na yan, the effect retroacts to the date of
delivery to the Court. As if at the time of delivery, the
ownership passed to the creditor.
Q: In these special forms of payment, will it result to
the total extinguishment of the obligation? Or partial
lang?
A:
1. In Dation in Payment, total extinguishment
unless malinaw sa mga parties na only to the extent
of the value. In other words, if the parties are silent, it
is total extinguishment.
Basis: Under Art. 1235 of the Civil Code, even if
incomplete ang performance and the creditor,
knowing the incompleteness, accepted the thing
without any objection or protest, the obligation is
deemed totally extinguished.
SC: The dation in payment extinguishes the
obligation to the extent of the value of the thing
delivered, either as agreed upon by the parties or as
may be proved, unless the parties by agreement, express
or implied, or by their silence, consider the thing as
equivalent to the obligation, in which case the obligation
is totally extinguished.
BAR QUESTION (2016):
Butch got a loan from Hagibis Corporation
(Hagibis) but he defaulted in the payment. A case
for collection of a sum of money was filed against
him. As a defense, Butch claims that there was
already an arrangement with Hagibis on the
payment of the loan. To implement the same,
Butch already surrendered five (5) service utility
vehicles (SUVs) to the company for it to sell and
the proceeds to be credited to the loan as payment.
Was the obligation of Butch extinguished by
reason of dacion en pago upon the surrender of
the SUVs? Decide and explain. (5%)
ANSWER: (Atty. U)
Ang isang maling pag sagot dito ay: ―No, the
obligation was not extinguished by dacion en pago
but rather by cession.‖ Hindi Cession ang tanong, ang
tanong ay dacion en pago. Kung gusto mo magsagot
ng Cession, secondary na lang yun kung may time ka
pa. Diba? Parang hindi ka busy. 
No, because clearly from the facts, the debtor
delivered the SUVs for the creditor to sell. Therefore,
upon delivery to the creditor, ownership did not pass
to the creditor and therefore it cannot be Dacion en
Pago. There has to be transfer of ownership upon
delivery.
2. In Application of Payment, ang tanong lang
dito to which debt the payment should be applied.
Obviously, walang total extinguishment dito. Kulang
ang pinambayad sa kautangan kaya pipili saan dun sa
mga kautangan dapat i-apply ang bayad.
3. In Payment by Cession, and Net proceeds
lang to that extent ma-extinguish ang obligation,
14 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
except if the agreement of the parties is for the total
extinguishment regardless of the Net proceeds.
BAR QUESTION (1984):
A sold to B a parcel of land with the right to
repurchase the same within three years. A
tendered the repurchase of price to B within the
prescribed period, but B refused to accept it. A
then brought an action in court for specific
performance. B contends that since A did not
deposit the money in court within the stipulated
period for repurchase and the period has now
lapsed, A can no longer repurchase the property.
Is this contention correct? Explain.
ANSWER: (UP)
No. Consignation is not necessary to compel B to
make the resale if he refused to accept the repurchase
price tendered. The provisions of consignation refer
only to obligations. They are not applicable to the
right of repurchase which is not an obligation but a
right exercise able purely at the option of A.
Atty. U:
As discussed in the case of Immaculata vs. Navarro,
B is not correct. Consignation is a special form of
payment, therefore dapat may obligation na gusto
mong i-extinguish. In the problem, walang
obligation. Si A ang meron siya is not an obligation
but a right to repurchase. Therefore, assuming that
the other party did not accept, he does not have the
obligation to deliver the money to the Court by way
of Consignation because he does not have an
obligation to extinguish.
BAR QUESTION (MCQ):
Allan bought Billy’s property through Carlos, an
agent empowered with a special power of attorney
(SPA) to sell the same.
When Allan was ready to pay as scheduled, Billy
called, directing Allan to pay directly to him. On
learning of this, Carlos, Billy's agent, told Allan to
pay through him as his SPA provided and to
protect his commission. Faced with two claimants,
Allan consigned the payment in court. Billy
protested, contending that the consignation is
ineffective since no tender of payment was made
to him. Is he correct?
a. No, since consignation without tender of
payment is allowed in the face of the
conflicting claims on the plaintiff.
b. Yes, as owner of the property sold, Billy can
demand payment directly to himself.
c. Yes, since Allan made no announcement of
the tender.
d. Yes, a tender of payment is required for a
valid consignation.
Atty. U:
LOSS OF THE THING DUE
- Impossibility of Performance
Effect of Partial Loss
Q: For examble, ang dapat mo i-deliver house and
lot. Before delivery, the house was destroyed. Is the
obligation extinguished? Eh may lot pa, hindi naman
nasunog ang lot.
A: It depends on the intention of the parties. Intention
as to whether the thing lost was so important that
without it, they would not have entered into that
contract. They would not have constituted the
obligation. Kung ganoon ka-important yung bahay na
yun, then the obligation is extinguished.
Article 1267
Q: If the performance of his obligation becomes so
difficult, is the obligation extinguished?
A: No. Difficult lang eh, hindi naman impossible.
Parang pag pasa lang ito ng Bar Exam. It is difficult
but not impossible. 
Q: What are the consequences?
A: The consequences will depend on the reason why
the performance becomes so difficult.
If it was because of an event which could not have
been foreseen by the parties, ang right lang ng isang
party is to go to Court, kung debtor ka, for the Court
to release you from this obligation in whole or in
part. Walang automatic extinguishment; pupunta ka
sa Korte. As ruled by the Supreme Court, ang Courts
walang powers to change the terms and conditions
agreed upon. Ang power lang ng Court is to release
the debtor, in whole or in part.
15 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
BAR QUESTION (1984):
For value received, Pedro promised to deliver to
Juan on or before August 15, 1984 a Mercedes
Benz with Plate No. 123 which he (Pedro) had just
brought home from Germany, as well as a 1984
18" Sony television set. Unfortunately, before the
scheduled delivery date, the Mercedes Benz and
the television set which Pedro had intended to
deliver to Juan were destroyed by an accidental
fire.
Has the obligation of Pedro been extinguished?
Explain.
ANSWER: (UP)
The obligation to deliver the Mercedes-Benz is an
obligation to deliver a determinate thing, because the
particular car to be delivered had been designated.
The obligation to deliver that particular car was
therefore extinguished by the occurrence of the fire, a
fortuitous event.
On the other hand, the obligation to deliver the
television set is an obligation to deliver a generic
thing. The particular television set to be delivered has
not been determined. Only the kind of television set
to be delivered was agreed upon. Pedro is therefore
still obligated to deliver a television set of the kind
and quality agreed upon, since generic obligations are
never extinguished by fortuitous events.
Atty. U:
It was extinguished, but only as far as the Mercedes
Benz is concerned because in the problem, the
Mercedes Benz is a determinate thing.
Whereas the TV set is a generic thing. Sabi ng Civil
Code, any obligation to deliver a generic thing, even
if a thing of the same kind is lost or destroyed, that
does not extinguish the obligation.
CONDONATION
- Condonation for the debt, not of the debtor!
- Also known as the Remission of the debt
- Donation of credit
Kaya kung may Condonation, ang una dapat i-
mention ay is it express or implied. Why? Since it is
a kind of donation, and it is an express condonation,
it has to follow the rules on express donation as to the
form.
BAR QUESTION (2000)
Arturo borrowed P500,00.00 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? (3%)
ANSWER: (UP)
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. 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 Art. 1270 (2) of the New Civil
Code. Since the amount of the balance is more that
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.
16 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
Atty. U:
Atty. Uribe’s view is in the Alternative Answer. This
cannot be implied. Nakasulat ―in full payment of the
loan‖, how express can it be?
Ang implied can be seen in the acts of the parties.
But the problem at bar, mukhang expresss. At kung
express, was there a valid condonation? WALA.
Because applying the rules on donation, this will be a
condonation involving a movable property and the
value is more than 5,000 pesos, it is required to be in
writing.
Q: But is it in writing?
A: Yes, nakasulat ay ―in full payment‖. But the other
requirement is that the acceptance must also be in
writing.
Q: Is there acceptance?
A: Wala. Kaya it cannot be a valid condonation.
COMPENSATION
- Compensation, in a way, is unique. There
can only be compensation if there are at least two
debts because a fundamental requirement for
compensation to take place is that the parties are
debtors and creditors of each other.
Classification as to the Extent of the
Extinguishment:
1. Total
- Under our Code, magiging total lang
ang compensation if all the debts are
totally extinguished. Ni piso, walang
natira.
2. Partial
- Basta may natira, kahit piso
Q: What is the relevance of this?
A: Marami. For example, yung liability for interest.
Kung total, eh di wala na. Pero kung partial, titingnan
mo kung yung natira ay yung interest bearing or not.
Kung yung interest bearing, eh di liable ka pa for
interest.
Kung may security ang isang utang, whether there
can be valid foreclosure after compensation,
kailangan tingnan mo kung total or partial
compensation. Kung total, aba wala na. Pero kung
partial, titingnan mo which debt is secured by the
mortgage. Because if you remember mortgage,
mortgage is an indivisible contract. Until the
obligation secured by the mortgage is totally
extinguished, it will remain to have full force and
effect.
Classification provided by the Code:
1. Legal
- Compensation by operation of law
- Walang consent
2. Conventional
- Kailangan ang consent ng both parties
- Includes Facultative which requires the
consent of 1 party
3. Judicial
- Wala ring consent
BAR QUESTION (1998):
X, who has a savings deposit with Y Bank in the
sum of PI ,000.000.00, incurs a loan obligation
with the said Bank in the sum of P800.000.00
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? [3%]
ANSWER: (UP)
Y bank is correct. Art. 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. xxx 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.
17 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
Atty. U:
This is Art. 1287. Compensation shall not be proper
when one of the debts arises from a depositum.
Q: Pero tama ba siya?
A: No, mali siya because 1287 does not apply in the
problem. Dahil dito sa problem na ito, walang
contract of deposit na pinasok. Ang akala niya, when
X opened a savings deposit eh deposit na yun which
is wrong.
By express provision of the law, savings deposit,
current deposits and time deposits are governed by
the rules on Simple Loans. They are not contracts out
of deposits. Thus, 1287 is not applicable. They are
deemed debtors and creditors of each other. Legal
Compensation took place.
Q: When would Legal Compensation not deemed
proper?
A:
1. When one of the debts arises from a
depositum;
2. Obligation of the bailee in Commodatum;
- One of the debts pertains to the civil
liability of the bailee
3. When one of the debts pertains to an
obligation to give support
4. When one of the debts is a civil liability
arising from an offense
Kapag Facultative, pwede magkaroon ng
Compensation with the consent of one. Hindi ko
sinabi na with na consent of ―either‖. In other words,
doon sa mga parties ng obligation, isa lang ang
pwede magbigay ng consentfor Compensation to take
place.
Q: Dito sa deposit, sino lang?
A: Ang pwede lang mag invoke ng Compensation ay
ang Depositor because in deposit, the law gives him
this right to believe that when he demands for the
return of the thing which he deposited, it will be
returned.
Ang obliged to give support cannot invoke support.
Ang pwede lang mag invoke ay ang entitled sa
support. Kapag nag invoke ng Compensation ang
obliged, baka mamatay sa gutom ang entitled sa
support.
Hindi applicable dito ang Support in Arrears at ang
Contractual Support.
Q: Sa obligation arising from delict, who can invoke
Compensation?
A: Yung injured party lang.
Pero most of the questions in the Bar ay nasa Legal
Compensation because it is considered as the true
kind of Compensation.
Q: Pero for Legal Compensation to take place, does
it matter kung may capacity to alienate the property
ang parties?
A: It does not matter. Kahit mga baliw sila, Legal
Compensation can take place.
BAR QUESTION (MCQ):
The following are the requisites of legal
compensation, except:
a. That each of the obligors is bound
principally and that he be the same time a
principal creditor of the other.
b. That both debts consist in a sum of money,
or if the things due are consumable, they be
the same kind, and also of the same quality
if the latter has been stated.
c. That the two (2) debts are not yet due.
d. That they be liquidated and demandable.
Atty. U:
As debtors and creditors of each other, may
requisites.
As debtors, they must be both principally bound.
Kasi kung liable ka lang subsidiarily, hindi pwede
ang Legal Compensation. Ang liable dun yung
principal debtor.
As creditors, they must be creditors in their own
right.
18 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
Q: In Art. 1240, yung mga naka enumerate, sino sila?
A: In one word, sila ay Creditors. They are creditors
but not all of them are creditors in their own right.
Yung nasa dulo, yung authorized to receive payment,
they are creditors because they have the power to
demand fulfillment. But they are not creditors in their
own right kasi ang tunay na creditor ay ang principal.
Even Attorney’s fees can be the subject of Legal
Compensation. Walang limitation, walang
qualification ang ating batas.
BAR QUESTION (2008):
Eduardo was granted a loan by XYZ Bank for the
purpose of improving a building which XYZ
leased from him. Eduardo, executed the
promissory note ("PN") in favor of the bank, with
his friend Recardo as co-signatory. In the PN, they
both acknowledged that they are "individually
and collectively" liable and waived the need for
prior demand.
To secure the PN, Recardo executed a real estate
mortgage on his own property. When Eduardo
defaulted on the PN, XYZ stopped payment of
rentals on the building on the ground that legal
compensation had set in. Since there was still a
balance due on the PN after applying the rentals,
XYZ foreclosed the real estate mortgage over
Recardo's property.
Recardo opposed the foreclosure on the ground
that he is only a co-signatory; that no demand was
made upon him for payment, and assuming he is
liable, his liability should not go beyond half the
balance of the loan. Further, Recardo said that
when the bank invoked compensation between the
reantals and the amount of the loan, it amounted
to a new contract or novation, and had the effect
of extinguishing the security since he did not give
his consent (as owner of the property under the
real estate mortgage) thereto.
Can XYZ Bank validly assert legal compensation?
(2%)
ANSWER: (UP)
Yes, XYZ Bank can validly assert legal
compensation. In the present case, all of the elements
of legal compensation are present: (1) XYZ Bank is
the creditor of Eduardo while Eduardo is the lessor of
XYZ Bank; (2) both debts consist in a sum of money,
or if the things due are consumable, they be of the
same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter
has been stated; (3) the two debts be due; (4) they be
liquidated and demandable, and (5) over neither of
them there be any retention or controversy,
commenced by third persons and communicated in
due time to the debtor (Art. 1279, Civil Code).
BAR QUESTION (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 PI 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 P10 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 reasons for your answer.
(5%)
ANSWER: (UP)
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 P10
Million damages being still pending in court, the
corporation has as yet no claim which is due and
demandable against Stockton.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER 1:
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 and
1319, Civil Code).
19 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER 2:
Even if assuming that there was a perfected right of
first refusal, compensation did not take place because
the claim is unliquidated.
BAR QUESTION (1981):
“B” borrowed from “C" P 1, 000.00 payable in
one year. When “C” was in the province, “C’s”
17-year old son borrowed P500.00 from “B” for
his school tuition. However, the son spent it
instead nightclubbing. When the debt to "C” fell
due, “B” tendered only P500.00, claiming
compensation on the
P500.00 borrowed by “C’s" son.
a. Is there legal compensation? Why?
b. Suppose the minor son actually used the
money for school tuition, would the
answer be different? Reasons.
ANSWER: (UP)
a. There is no legal compensation. Under the
Civil Code, in order that there will be a valid
and effective compensation, it is essential
that there must be two parties, who in their
own right, are principal creditors and
principal debtors of each other. In the instant
case, ―C‖ cannot be considered as a party to
the act of his 17-year old son in borrowing
P500.00 from ―B‖. Consequently, he did not
become a principal debtor of ―B‖; neither
did ―B‖ become a principal creditor of ―C‖.
Therefore, there can be no partial
compensation of the P 1,000.00 borrowed by
―B‖ from "C‖ (Art. 128 and 1279, Civil
Code).
b. There would be no difference in any answer.
There will still be no legal compensation.
The fact that ―C’s‖ son actually used the
P500.00 for his school tuition did not make
―C‖ a party to the contract between his son
and ―B‖. Therefore, ―C" is not the principal
debtor of ―B" and ―B‖ is not the principal
creditor of ―C‖ with respect to said amount
(Art. 1278 and 1279, Civil Code).
Atty. U:
b. Yes, there can be legal compensation
because the amount borrowed redounded to
the benefit of the C, so C can B will be
debtors and creditors of each other. There
can be legal compensation.
NOVATION
- Tunay na unique if only because of its nature.
- It has a dual function. It extinguished, but it also
creates obligation.
Classification:
1. Express
- By agreement
2. Implied
- Under the circumstances
There are 3 kinds of Novation:
1. Subjective or Personal Novation
- May kinalaman sa parties
2. Objective or Real Novation
- May kinalaman sa subject matter or the
conditions in the obligations
3. Mixed Novation
2 Kinds of Subjective Novation
1. Active – if a 3rd person is subrogated to the
rights of the creditor
2. Passive – when there is a substitution of the
person of the debtor
Q: When would there be subrogation kung may
Novation?
A: Kung Express, upon agreement of the parties. But
there will be instances where there can be
subrogation by operation of law of Legal
Subrogation. Naka enumerate sa Art. 1302.
Comment: Tama ba na yung enumeration sa Art.
1302 ay nasa Novation? Kasi ang implication dyan,
there is Legal Subrogation because of Novation
which is not true! There would be Legal Subrogation
because of there was payment. If you read all these
scenarios, lahat may payment. Kung hindi nag bayad,
may Legal Subrogation ba? Wala. In fact, 2 out of the
3, nasa Payment na. Nasa 1236 at 1237 na.
20 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
Q: Si A debtor ni B. Nagka usap si B at si X, sabi ni
X kay B ―babayaran ko ang ni A‖. May substitution
ba of the person of the debtor?
A: Wala. Hindi naman malinaw sa usapan na X will
pay B ―in lieu‖ of A. Malinaw dapat na nire-release
ang first debtor. Malinaw na may substitution.
Q: What if the new debtor paid the creditor. How
much can he validly demand by way of
reimbursement from the original debtor? If the
original debtor fails to reimburse him, can he run
after those who are subsidiarily obliged? Yung mga
guarantors doon sa unang obligation?
A: Consider first what kind of Passive Subjective
Novation is involved.
1. Expromision – the substitution was without
the knowledge or against the will of the
original debtor
2. Delegacion – the substitution was with the
knowledge and consent of the original
debtor
As to how much can the new debtor reimburse, it will
depend whether the novation is Expromision or
Delegacion.
Expromision applies the rule on 3rd party payment.
Meaning, he can only seek reimbursement up to the
extent the payment benefited the debtor, and he will
be not subrogated of the rights of the creditor.
Pero kung Delegacion, then he can recover the entire
amount and he can exercise all the rights of the
creditor, not only against the debtor but also against
anyone who is subsidiarily obliged.
Q: What if nung nag demand ang creditor sa new
debtor, insolvent ang new debtor? Can the creditor
run after the original debtor?
A: Ordinarily, dapat hindi because the obligation of
the debtor was extinguished by novation. But by
express provision of the law, pwede pa siyang
balikan. But the scenario only was he was the one
who initiated the substitution knowing fully well that
the 3rd person is insolvent. Or kung wala man siyang
actual knowledge, the insolvency of the 3rd person is
publicly known. In other words, kaya siya liable is
because of bad faith.
Q: If the scenario is Expromision, will this apply?
A: No, because in Expromision the substitution was
without the knowledge or against the will of the
original debtor.
Q: Even if Delegacion ang substitution, necessarily
liable ba ang original debtor?
A: HINDI. Pwede naman na siya ang nag initiate
pero hindi niya alam na insolvent at hindi publicly
known. Or siya ang nag initiate pero at the time of
the substitution, hindi pa insolvent ang new debtor.
Q: Can there be a valid substitution without the
consent of the creditor?
A: NEVER. By express provision of the law (Art.
1293)
BAR QUESTION (1996):
Baldomero leased his house with a telephone to
Jose. The lease contract provided that Jose shall
pay for all electricity, water and telephone
services in the leased premises during the period
of the lease. Six months later, Jose surreptitiously
vacated the premises. He left behind unpaid
telephone bills for overseas telephone calls
amounting to over P20.000.00. Baldomero refused
to pay the said bills on the ground that Jose had
already substituted him as the customer of the
telephone company. The latter maintained that
Baldomero remained as his customer as far as
their service contract was concerned,
notwithstanding the lease contract between
Baldomero and Jose.
Who is correct, Baldomero or the telephone
company? Explain.
ANSWER: (UP)
The telephone company is correct because as far as it
is concerned, the only person it contracted with was
Baldomero. The telephone company has no contract
with Jose. Baldomero cannot substitute Jose in his
stead without the consent of the telephone company
(Art. 1293, NCC). Baldomero is, therefore, liable
under the contract.
21 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]
Atty. U:
The telephone company is correct. There can never
be substitution on the person of the debtor without
consent of the creditor.
BAR QUESTION (2014):
J.C. Construction (J.C.) bought steel bars from
Matibay Steel Industries (MSI) which is owned by
Buddy Batungbacal. J.C. failed to pay the
purchased materials worth P500,000.00 on due
date. J.C. persuaded its client Amoroso with
whom it had receivables to pay its obligation to
MSI. Amoroso agreed and paid MSI the amount
of P50,000.00. After two (2) other payments,
Amoroso stopped making further payments.
Buddy filed a complaint for collection of the
balance of the obligation and damages against J.C.
J.C. denied any liability claiming that its
obligation was extinguished by reason of novation
which took place when MSI accepted partial
payments from Amoroso on its behalf.
Was the obligation of J.C. Construction to MSI
extinguished by novation? Why? (4%)
ANSWER: (UP)
No, the obligation of JC was not extinguished by
novation. Novation may either be objective or
subjective. Subjective novation takes place by the
substitution of debtor or subrogation of a 3rd person
to the rights of the creditor. Novation by substituting
a new debtor may take place even without the
knowledge or against the will of the original debtor
but not without the consent of the creditor. Moreover,
novation must be express and cannot be implied and
there must be an agreement that the old obligation is
extinguished. In the case of JC, it does not appear
that MSI had agreed to release JC from the
obligation. Hence, the obligation of JC was not
extinguished.
Atty. U:
The obligation was not extinguished because it was
not agreed upon that Amoroso will now be the new
debtor. Ang usapan lang ay Amoroso will pay. Hindi
naman pumayag ang MSI na ituloy na ni Amoroso
ang pagiging debtor. That can never be substitution
of the person of the debtor. Ang nangyari lang dito is
just 3rd party payment. The obligation is extinguished
only to the extent of the payment.
BAR QUESTION (2011):
Upon the proposal of a third person, a new debtor
substituted the original debtor without the latter’s
consent. The creditor accepted the substitution.
Later, however, the new debtor became insolvent
and defaulted in his obligation. What is the effect
of the new debtor’s default upon the original
debtor?
a. The original debtor is freed of liability
since novation took place and this
relieved him of his obligation.
b. The original debtor shall pay or perform the
obligation with recourse to the new debtor.
c. The original debtor remains liable since he
gave no consent to the substitution.
d. The original debtor shall pay or perform
50% of the obligation to avoid unjust
enrichment on his part.
Objective or Real Novation
2 scenarios:
1. There is a change in the object
- Easiest to ascertain
2. There is a change in the principal
condition/s.
- Pinaka mahirap in an implied novation
because if there is a change in a
condition/s, ang unang tanong does it
pertain to a principal condition or not?
Q: Kapag dalawa na ang changes or tatlo or apat,
does it really change the obligation?
A: It depends on the obligation. The Supreme Court
provided us with a test:
 If the 2 obligations are so inconsistent with
each other that they cannot stand together,
then there is novation.
22 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]

BAR QUESTION (1988): change in the work schedule. Jerico claims there is
Suppose that under an obligation imposed by a no novation of the Construction Contract. Decide
final judgment, the liability of the judgment the case and explain. (5%)
debtor is to pay the amount of P6,000.00 but both
the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor
subsequently entered into a contract reducing the ANSWER: (Atty. U)
liability of the former to only P4,000.00, is there Ito 2-3 years ago. Walang novation dito.
an implied novation which will have the effect of
extinguishing the judgment obligation and
creating a modified obligatory relation? Reasons.

ANSWER: (UP)
There is no implied novation in this case. We see no
valid objection to the judgment debtor and the
judgment creditor in entering into an agreement
regarding the monetary obligation of the former
under the judgment referred to. The payment by the
judgment debtor of the lesser amount of P4,000,
accepted by the creditor without any protest of
objection and acknowledged by the latter as in full
satisfaction of the money judgment, completely
extinguished the judgment debt and released the
debtor from his pecuniary liability.

Novation results in two stipulations— one to

extinguish an existing obligation, the other to
substitute a new one in its place. Fundamental it is
that novation effects a substitution or modification of
an obligation by another or an extinguishment of one
obligation by the creation of another. In the case at
hand, We fail to see what new or modified, obligation
arose out of the payment by judgment debtor of the
reduced amount of P4,000 to the creditor,
Additionally, to sustain novation necessitates that the
same be so declared in unequivocal terms clearly and
unmistakably shown by the express agreement of the
parties or by acts of equivalent import— or that there
is complete and substantial incompatibility between
the two obligations. (Sandico vs. Piguing, 42 SCRA
322.)

BAR QUESTION (2016):

Jerico, the project owner, entered into a
Construction Contract with Ivan for the latter to
construct his house. Jojo executed a Surety
undertaking to guarantee the performance of the
work by Ivan. Jerico and Ivan later entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) revising the
work schedule of Ivan and the subcontractors.
The MOA stated that all the stipulations of the
original contract not in conflict with said
agreement shall remain valid and legally effective.
Jojo filed a suit to declare him relieved of his
undertaking as a result of the MOA because of the

23 | P a g e
 MENDOZA, CBP [OBLICON SPECIAL LECTURE : ATTY. URIBE l BAR QUESTIONS]

CASES MENTIONED:

1. Saludaga vs FEU
2. Sagrada Oden vs NACOCO
3. MBTC vs Rosales
4. CBK Power vs CIR
5. Arco Pulp vs Lim
6. Ronquillo vs CA
7. Liwanag vs WCC (GR No. 12164)
8. Ruks Konsult vs Adworld Sign
9. Robes-Francisco vs CFI
10. Cangco vs MRR
11. Telefast vs Castro
12. Agcaoili vs GSIS
13. Rivera vs Spouses Chua
14. Sicam vs Jorge
15. Fil-Estate Prop. Vs Spouses Ronquillo
16. Magdalena Estate vs Myrick
17. Olivarez Realty vs Castillo
18. Swire Realty vs Yu
19. NAPOCOR vs Ibrahim
20. Bognot vs RRI Lending
21. Filinvest vs Phil. Acetylene
22. PNB vs Prime East
23. Immaculata vs Navarro
24. PNB vs Acero
25. Francia vs IAC
26. Sycip vs CA
27. Mindanao Portland vs CA
28. Union Bank vs DBP
29. Cochingyan vs R&B Surety
30. FUA vs Yap
31. Millar vs CA
32. Japan Airlines vs Simangan

24 | P a g e