1. Golda’s suit for damages against Silver Enterprises will not prosper.

Under the Civil Code, if an unforeseeable event happens or if

foreseeable but cannot be avoided may extinguished an obligation. In
this case, the carnapping is a foreseeable event but cannot be
avoided. The silver enterprises is not liable of negligence on their part
because carnapping is an unfortunate event. Therefore, Golda cannot
claim damages on Silver Enterprises.
2. Yes, the tender of payment is valid. The Court stated before that
tender of payment is completed by consignation. The Civil Code
states that the valid tender of payment must be made in lawful
currency, should include interest, must be unconditional, and must
be actually made. In this case, Andrea payed the utility bills
unconditionally, and sufficiently fulfill one of the requisites of the
valid consignation which is to notify the Maria. Therefor, Andrea’s
performance is a valid tender of payment.
3. Yes, the action has prescribed. Under the Civil Code, the prescribed
period for recission is 4 years. In this case, the discovery of breach
was on 2005 and the case was filed on 2010. With that, the action has
prescribed.
4. The sale is valid but voidable due to defect on consent. Under the
Civil Code, a contract is annullable if there is the consent of another
party is vitiated. Although the sale was valid, the consent of
Margarita was vitiated due to fraud made by Roberto. Mario acted in
good faith which according to Civil Code is that he validly claim the
property because it is inequity on his part. The argument of laches is
incorrect since Margarita has no knowledge on the sale, and she acted
on good faith. Therefore, the sale is valid but voidable.