OBLICON MODULE 3

NAME: Dome, Jay Ann B PROFESSOR:ATTY. JOSE T.

YAYEN

SECTION: BSA – 12

A. Problems:

1. S agreed to deliver to B 500 cavans of rice at P600 per cavans. S delivered

only 490 cavans deliberately misrepresenting that the delivery consisted of
500 cavans. Can B as the court to annul the contract on the ground of fraud?
Why? (5pts)
 No, because according to the discussion of Carbonel v Poncio, It is
well settled in this jurisdiction that the Statute of Frauds is applicable
only to executory contracts, not to contracts that are totally or partially
performed. Since it is partially performed, it is removed from the
statute of fraud. ART. 1344. In order that fraud may make a contract
voidable, it should be serious and should not have been employed by
both contracting parties. Incidental fraud only obliges the person
employing it to pay damages. Under the requisites of casual fraud first
it should be serious second should not have been employed both
contracting parties and lastly, should not have been known by other
contracting parties.
 2. S Sold his house to B believing that B was C. Can S legally withdraw from
the contract on the ground of mistake? Why? (5pts)
 Yes, because contracts with consent done by mistake is voidable.
ART. 1331. In order that mistake may invalidate consent, it should
refer to the substance of the thing which is the object of the contract,
or to those conditions which have principally moved one or both
parties to enter into the contract. Mistake as to the identity or
qualifications of one of the parties will vitiate consent only when such
identity or qualifications have been the principal cause of the contract.
A simple mistake of account shall give rise to its correction.

3. D owes C P20,000. Both are house painters. It was agreed that D instead of
painting C, will paint the house of E to E expressed his conformity to C
whose service as painter was previously contracted by E. Has B the right to
enforce the stipulation between C and D? Why? (5pts)
 Yes, because if E agreed to accept D's service as the service of C, then
the agreement between E and C will be satisfied, as well as the
agreement between C and D. It will be like a third party vendor
agreement, where in D helped C fulfill his contract with E. Although
E has the right to reject the service of D as a failure to fulfill the
contract by C.

V. Exercises / Learning Activities

A. Problem Analysis:
(1) Mr A wants to sell his book but he has no time to do so. Thus, he hired Mr C
to sell his book. Mr C offered to sell Mr A’s book to Mr. B for P500 on June
5, 2013, Mr B accepted the offer by sending a letter to Mr C on June 6,
2013. Mr C received and read the letter on June 10, 2013. Mr C informed
Mr A about the acceptance on June 11, 2013. When was the transaction
perfected? Why? (5pts)
 The transaction perfected on June 10, 2013 when Mr. C already
received and read the letter that he was given to Mr. B that he
accepted a letter to Mr. C. This will prove in Article 1322 “An offer
made through an agent is accepted from the time acceptance is
communicated to him”. This article applies only if the offer is made
through the agent and the acceptance is communicated through him.
Hence, there would be no meeting of the minds if the principal
himself made the offer and the acceptance is communicated to the
agent unless, of course, the latter is
authorized to receive the acceptance.

(2) A, a consistent scholar and honor student for three years in M University and
he enjoyed free tuition privileges. In his fourth year, he decided to study in a
university in Davao as his father died and he has to stay with his mother. He
needed the transcripts of his records in M University, but the latter refused to
issue them until he had refunded the whole amount of tuition fees given to
him for 3 years of his stay, alleging that he signed the agreement beforehand
and waiving his right to transfer to another university without having
refunded the cash equivalent for his scholarship. A was forced to refund the
amount as he did not want to be late for his enrolment in the Davao
 university. Later he sued for its return. Can A recover the amount he
refunded to M University? Reason for the answer. (5pts)
 A can’t recover the amount he refunded it was the school negligence
since they tried to pay the amount that A has refunded after the time
he leaved the school and transfer to another university. ART. 1306.
The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms
and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

(3) Mr. A offered to sell his book to Mr B for P500 on June 5, 2013 while they
were having dinner in a restaurant. Mr A informed Mr B that he has five
days to accept. Mr A died on June 6, 2013. Mr. A accepted the offer on June
10, 2013 by sending a letter. Is there a perfected contact? Why? (5 pts)
 The contract does not goes perfectly since Mr. A died in June 6, 2013
the Article 1323. An offer becomes ineffective upon the death, civil
interdiction, insanity, or insolvency of either party before acceptance
is conveyed. It explains that even if the offer is not withdrawn, its
acceptance will not produce a meeting of the minds in case the offer
has already become ineffective because of the death, civil interdiction,
insanity, or insolvency of either party before the conveyance of the
acceptance to the offeror. In the statement Mr. B accepted the offer by
June 10, 2013 through letter only therefore Mr. A did not already
know about the acceptance since he died before the transaction
happen. Article Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and
the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the
contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. A
qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer. Acceptance made by
 letter or telegram does not bind the offerer except from the time it
came to his knowledge. The contract, in such a case, is presumed to
have been entered into in the place where the offer was made.

VI. Assignments

CASE DIGEST:

(1) So Ping Bun v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 536 (1996) (10 pts)

I. Facts of the Case

Tek Hua Trading Co. entered into lease agreement with the lessor Dee C.
Chuan and Sons Inc. (DCCSI). When Tek Hua Trading Co. was later
dissolved and the original members built Tek Hua Trading Corp. The
grandson of the partners named So Ping Bun, after the death of his
grandfather, continued occupying the warehouse for his own textile
business.
 In a letter to petitioner, the owner of Tek Hua Trading Corp. informed the
petitioner to vacate the warehouse. Petitioner refused and requested formal
contracts of lease with DCCSI to which it acceded and a new lease of
contract in favor of Trendsetter was executed.

Tek Hua Enterprises Corp. then petitioned the court for injuction,
nullification of the lease contract between DCCSI and So Ping Bun and
damages, to which the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 35 granted
and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

II. Decisions Made

(1) Lower Court
Wherefore, judgment is rendered:

1. Annulling the four Contracts of Lease (Exhibits A, A-1 to A-3, inclusive)

all dated March 11, 1991, between defendant So Ping Bun, doing business
under the name and style of "Trendsetter Marketing", and defendant Dee C.
Chuan & Sons, Inc. over the premises located at Nos. 924-B, 924-C, 930
and 930, Int., respectively, Soler Street, Binondo Manila;

2. Making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court

on June 21, 1991;

3. Ordering defendant So Ping Bun to pay the aggrieved party, plaintiff Tek
Hua Enterprising Corporation, the sum of P500,000.00, for attorney's fees;
 4. Dismissing the complaint, insofar as plaintiff Manuel C. Tiong is
concerned, and the respective counterclaims of the defendant;

5. Ordering defendant So Ping Bun to pay the costs of this lawsuit;

This judgment is without prejudice to the rights of plaintiff Tek Hua

Enterprising Corporation and defendant Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. to negotiate
for the renewal of their lease contracts over the premises located at Nos. 930,
930-Int., 924-B and 924-C Soler Street, Binondo, Manila, under such terms and
conditions as they agree upon, provided they are not contrary to law, public
policy, public order, and morals.

(2) Appellate Court

Wherefore, foregoing considered, the appeal of respondent-appellant So Ping
Bun for lack of merit is DISMISSED. The appealed decision dated April 20,
1992 of the court a quo is modified by reducing the attorney's fees awarded to
plaintiff Tek Hua Enterprising Corporation from P500,000.00 to P200,000.00.

(3) Supreme Court

No, Supreme Court affirmed the decision. However, award of attorney’s fee
was modified from 200k to 100k.

Damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results from injury, and damages are the
compensation awarded for the damage suffered. The elements of Tort of
interference are:
1. Existence of a valid contract
2. Knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence contract;
 3. Interference of third person is without legal justification or excuse.
4.

III. Personal Evaluation.

For me the final decision of the Supreme Court was right since there is a
physical damage occur thus it explains in the requisites of damage is the loss
or hurt or harm. The requisites said that in need of a valid contract and also
with the knowledge of the third person involved. Here we can clearly see
that it is good to reduce the 200k to 100k since there was a damage.