OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS (LAW 1)

FINALS: QUIZ # 2

Name: ROMAN, IRISH Q.

INSTRUCTIONS: This seatwork consists of three (3) numbers. Read each question very carefully before answering. Answer
SEQUENTIALLY, clearly and concisely. Do not repeat the question. State the legal bases of your answers. You will be given credit
for your knowledge of legal doctrine and for the quality of your legal reasoning. A mere “Yes” or “No” answer without any
corresponding discussion will not be given any credit. Write your answers in a yellow paper and hand in your paper together with the
questionnaire after answering. Goodluck!

Indicate your answers by writing them in a brief but logical manner embodying therein your legal reasons.

NOTE: Quiz should be submitted on time, otherwise it will no longer be accepted and will automatically be marked zero. Sharing or
copying of answers will not also be allowed. Please be guided accordingly.

1. Gregorio, the guardian of Manuel, a minor, sold the rice harvested from Manuel’s rice farm for P50,000. The rice had a
value of P60,000. Is the contract recissible? Why?

- NO, because Gregorio willing to pay 60,000 it is not more than 1/4 of the sold rice, because when ward which you
serve suffers a loss of more than one-fourth of the cost of the item that are the subject of the contract, guardians
entered into it.

2. Braulio bought a certain lot from Segundo, an insane person. Later, Braulio realized that he was mistaken in buying the lot of
Segundo so he filed a court action to annul the contract on the ground that Segundo was insane at the time the contract was
entered into. Will the court action filed by Braulio to annul the sale prosper? Why?

- YES, because Segundo is an insane person, we have following that are in capable of giving consent to a contract that
case of Braulio, and Segundo is based on Art. 1327 “Deaf-mutes who do not know how to write.”

3. Miguel, a businessman, read a newspaper advertisement about a land and building for lease at 705 Moret Street, Sampaloc,
manila. He called the owner and told him that he would like to see the place which he said he found ideal for his computer rental
business. On arriving at the place, he was met by Onofre, the owner, and after inspecting the place, Miguel told Onofre that he
wanted to lease it. After some discussion, Miguel and Onofre agreed on the terms: monthly rental of P20,000 to be paid in
advance monthly; one month advance rental and two months deposit to be paid upon agreement; lease period of 2 years. Onofre,
however, told Miguel that the signing of the lease contract would be made the day, Miguel inquired from following day as he
(Onofre) would need some time to prepare the lease contract. Miguel replied that that would not be a problem to him and even
gave Onofre P20,000 in cash representing the required advance rental. The following Onofre if they could already sign the lease
contract but Onofre told him that he was no longer interested in pursuing the lease with Miguel since he received another
proposal to have the place leased for P25,000.00 a month. Onofre, told Miguel that at any rate, their agreement was not
enforceable since a lease of property for more than a year must be in writing and that he was returning the amount of P20,000
which Miguel paid the previous day. May Miguel enforce the lease contract against Onofre? Why?

- YES, because it has been partially executed and Miguel gave Onofre a 20,000 in cash for the advance rental they both
agree, Miguel just need to prove that he gave Onofre a 20,000 or represent a third person. Proofs that Miguel possible
have the phone that uses Miguel to contact Onofre, the money that he gave to Onofre and the contract that is made but
haven’t sign but I know doing a contract have a agreement that they agreed.