TEST No.

OBLIGATIONS & CONTRACTS

1. COVID operates or leases out shopping malls that have parking facilities. The people that use
said facilities are required to pay parking fees by COVID. Senate committees conducted an
investigation to determine the legality of said practice which the same found to be against the
National Building Code. COVID then received an information from various government
agencies enjoining them from collecting parking fees and later a civil case against them.
COVID argued that the same constitutes undue taking of private property. OSG argues that the
same is implemented in view of public welfare more specifically to ease traffic congestion. The
RTC ruled in favor of COVID.

Is COVID obligated to provide for free parking to its consumers and the public?

2. Mybank deposited the YourCorp checks to Mahogany Lumber and Hardware’s account;
because of Tin’s control over YourCorp’s operations, Mybank assumed that the checks
payable to YourCorp could be deposited to Mahogany Lumber and Hardware’s account.

Mahogany Lumber and Hardware had no right to demand and receive the checks that were
deposited to its account; despite Tin’s control over YourCorp and Ayala Lumber and Hardware,
the two entities are distinct, and checks exclusively and expressly payable to one cannot be
deposited in the account of the other.

In its [fourth-party] complaint, Mybank claims that Tin’s estate should reimburse it if it becomes
liable on the checks that it deposited to Mahogany Lumber and Hardware’s account.

Does Mahogany Lumber oblige return the amount of said checks to Mybank?

3. On 29 October 1992, the herein private respondent, Pedro Pedrita, claiming to be the
owner of the premises in Tiptip District, Tagbilaran City, which he had leased to the
herein petitioner, Inocencia Consencia, filed an action for unlawful detainer, to evict the
petitioner, from the said premises for her alleged failure to comply with the terms and
conditions of the lease contract by failing and refusing to pay the stipulated rentals despite
repeated demands.

Petitioner claims that she entered into the lease agreement but with his mother; that her failure to
pay the rentals on the premises was due to the refusal of the collector to accept her tender of
payment; and that laches had deprived private respondent of whatever right he had against her.

Does private respondent or the lessor liable for mora accipiendi?

4. Petitioner Kalisud filed an action for damages by reason of contractual breach against
respondent Kahayahay Travel Corp. Petitioner booked the TriCity tour with Kahayahay. The
tour covered a 22-day tour of Taiwan, Thailand, IndoChina for P155, 000.00 charged by private
respondent for her and her sister, Kalipay. At the tour, petitioner claimed that what was
alleged in the brochure was not what they experienced. There was no TriCity tour manager as
stated in the brochure, the hotels where they stayed in which were advertised as first class
were not, the Thailand's Temples which was specifically included as a highlight of the tour was
not visited and The Filipino tour guide provided by Kahayahay was a first timer thus
inexperienced.
Does Kahayahay Travel Corp. acted in bad faith or with gross negligence in discharging its
obligations in the contract?

5. A, B, and C are owners of a house near the D’s four-story school building along the same road.
During a typhoon, the roof of D’s building was partly ripped off and blown away by strong winds,
landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of A, B, and C’s house. In the aftermath, an
ocular inspection of the destroyed building was spearheaded by the city building official. In his
report, he imputed negligence to D for the structural defect of the building and improper
anchorage of trusses to the roof beams which caused the roof be ripped off the building, thereby
causing damage to the property of A, B, and C. A, B, and C filed an action before the RTC for
recovery of damages based on culpa aquilina. D contested that it had no liability, attributing the
damage to a fortuitous event.

Can the damage caused be attributed to fortuitous event?