1. Jaysan’s contention is incorrect.

According to the Supreme Court ruling of Rosencor v Inquing, the right of first
refusal is not covered by the statute of frauds as it is not a contract listed under Article
1403 (par. 2) of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Thus, Jaysan’s contention that Jojo’s right of first is refusal is unenforceable,
since it was not in a written contract, is incorrect.

B. Jojo can file an action of for damages.

According to the Supreme Court ruling of Rosencor v Inquing, an action for
rescission is filed when the 3rd party is in bad faith. However, if there is an absence of
bad faith, a case for damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines would
suffice. Article 19 states that “every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith.
Thus, Jojo can file an action against Jaysan under Article 19 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.

2. Kat could no longer file an action for annulment.

According to the ruling under Mercado v Espiritu, active misrepresentation of a
minor in a deed of sale is not an excuse to annul the contract as there is the principle of
estoppel, unless the minor is unmistakably a child, the principle of estoppel would
apply. There is also a prescription of 4 years in filing the case for annulment of a
voidable contract.
Thus, Kat is barred from filing an action for annulment of a voidable contract due
to prescription, as she filed the case at the age of 25, which should have been filed
within 4 years from reaching the age of majority and because of active
misrepresentation which is barred by the principle of estoppel.

3. No, Cryptocurrency or bitcoin is not a valid tender of payment.

Under RA 8183, the legal tender for payment is the Philippine currency, unless
the parties have agreed that the transaction will be settled in other currency.
Legal tender of payment are the notes and bills that are recognized by the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Thus, cryptocurrency, even though it was the agreed
currency by the parties, is not considered as a valid tender of payment

4. The mode of extinguishment is by objective novation of the obligation.

According to Filinvest v Philippine Acetylene, the Supreme Court held that what
actually happens when a person resorts to Dacion to settle his obligation, is an
objective novation of the obligation, which is governed by the law of sales.
Thus, the mode of extinguishment is by objective novation of the obligation, not
by payment.

5.A. Adolph may file an action for rescission of the contract between Manny and
Onyok.
 Under Article 1381 (3) of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the contract which is
undertaken in fraud of creditors is rescissible, it is a safeguard for the creditor who is
prejudiced by the act of his debtor.
In this case, Onyok entered into a contract with Manny even though he knew
that he does not have the means to pay the latter since the money should have been
paid to Adolph. Thus, Adolph could file a case for rescission of contract of Manny and
Onyok.

B. Manny can invoke Article 1385 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Under this article, those who are not in bad faith and legally obtained the object
of the contract shall not be affected by rescission of the contract.
In this case, Manny did not know that Onyok had an ongoing case filed against
him, thus Manny legally obtained the money without bad faith through Onyok, which in
turn is not actionable due to the facts of the case.
6. Super Cars Inc.’s contention is incorrect.
According to the ruling of COMGLASCO v Santos Car Check Center, Article 1267
of the Civil Code of the Philippines does not apply to payment of rentals, as lease
payments are not under the prestation of ‘to do”. This article covers only services which
have become so difficult to render, thus the obligor may be released in whole or in part.
In this case, the lease payments is under the prestation of “to give”, which is not
covered under Article 1267. Thus, Super Car Inc.’s contention is incorrect.

7. Bob could collect 750,000 pesos to either Robin or Ringo.

There is mutual agency in every solidary obligation, which means that each
debtor/ creditor is a mutual agent of the other debtor/creditor.
Even though, Paul became insolvent, his share to the debt is still answerable by
the other debtors by reason of mutual agency. However, Bob condoned the share of
John, which is 250,000 pesos when the 1 million pesos is equally divided to them.
Therefore, Bob could only collect 750,000 pesos to either Robin or Ringo, or he could
split the amount to any of them.