Chapter 1 (Problems Section) page 32 to 33

1. Yes, X is entitled to be reimbursed by Y for the amount of P150. According to Article

1160, “obligations derived from quasi-contracts shall be subject to the provision” and
quasi-contract is a “certain lawful, voluntary, and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical
relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at
the expense of another”. In accordance with the principle of quasi-contract which is
created by the court when there are cases that there is no existing agreement or obligation
between the two parties. Y unfairly benefitted in the situation at the expense of X by
spending P150 for the meal of Y’s child. Although it is not requested, Y’s child still
accepted the meal therefore the acceptance creates an expectation of payment. Y is liable
to pay X even if there is no agreement or consent given.

2. Yes, Y is liable to X for the damage. According to Article 1162, “obligations derived
from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions” and quasi delicts is about
“whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties”. There is no pre-existing contractual between X
and Y but the car of X was damaged due to the act or omission of Y. And even if Y
accidentally bumped the car but due to his negligence the damage has been done. Y is
obliged to pay for the damage done to the car.

3. No, X doesn’t have a right to ask indemnity from R, employer of X even if when the
accident occurred X was then on his way to transact business with a client of R.
According to Article 1158, “obligation derived from law are not presumed. Only those
expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and shall be
regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them: and as to what has not been
foreseen, by the provisions”. No indemnity will be given to X by R because there is no
law which imposes this obligation upon cases like this.

4. No, D is not legally justified to refuse to pay C. According to Article 1159, “obligations
arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be
compiled with in good faith”. D borrowed P10, 000 from C and agreed to pay for it in a
voluntary agreement whether there is no indication of what type of contract it is, the
contract may be in written or verbal which binds the two parties. The loan contract was
between the D and C, the robbery does not affect the agreement. Even though such
circumstances like misfortune happened and it affects his financial ability to pay, D
should comply with the agreement in good faith and the robbery does not serve as a legal
justification to refuse from paying the loan to C. The debt is still due and D is liable to
pay for it.