OBLGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

Short Quiz

Explain or state briefly the rule or reason for your answer. 20 pts each.

1. Bong-bong saw at about 1 0’clock in the afternoon a child alone in Mega Mall. The child
who strayed from Leni, his mother was in tears and appeared very hungry. Out of pity,
Bong-bong took him to a restaurant to eat for which he spent P500.00. Leni did not give
her consent to the good deed of Bong-bong. Furthermore, they were on their way home
before the child get lost. Is Bong-bong entitled to be reimbursed by Leni for the amount
of P500.00?

Answer:
Yes, because according to Article 1160 of obligations derived from quasi-contracts shall
be subject to the provisions of Chapter 1, kinds of quasi-contracts, a negotiorum gestio
states that the voluntary management of the property or affairs of another without
knowledge or consent of the latter. In this case, Bong-bong is entitled for
reimbursement by Leni for the amount of P500.00 because of a lawful, voluntary and
unilateral acts by virtue of which X helped and took the child to a restaurant.

2. Pacman sold to Isko a specific Montero SUV which Pacman agreed to deliver not later
than September 30, 2021. Pacman did not deliver the said Montero SUV on said date. Is
Pacman guilty of legal delay?

Answer:
Pacman is guilty of only ordinary delay as stated in Art 1169, since there was no demand
from Isko so it is assumed that both Pacman and Isko had their agreement of maybe
extending the due date of the delivery or it could also be that Pacman had reason out
the possible circumstances that had hinders him from delivering the item on time such
as fortuitous events as stated in Article 1174.

3. Dalisay (the debtor) borrowed P100,000.00 from Cardo (creditor) payable after one (1)
year. Is Dalisay liable to pay interest?

Answer:
According to Article 1159, Dalisay is liable to pay interest to Cardo if: (1) they have
expressly stipulated that a certain amount of interest may be recovered by Cardo, and
(2) there is a written agreement between Dalisay and Cardo about the interest. Since it
was not stated that both parties had agreed upon a certain agreement it could be that
Dalisay is not liable for any payment of interest. But if on the other situation points out
that both parties had a written agreement about the payment then Dalisay shall be
liable of the payment of the interest.
4. While the car of Xander F. was parked by the roadside, it was bumped at the rear by a
jeep belonging to Yen C. Only the car of Xander F. suffered damage. Under the
circumstances, does it follow that Yen C. is liable to Xander F. for damages?

Answer:
Yes, because even if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between them,
Xander’s F. car was damaged due to the negligence of Yen C. If Yen C. did not bump
Xander’s car, Xander’s car would not have been damaged. Thus, Yen C. is liable to
Xander’s F. for the damages as stated in Article 1162.

5. Susie (seller) sold to Baste (buyer) on September 5, a zutsie dog named Mara to be
delivered on October 5. However, on September 20, Susie sold again and delivered the
zutsie dog to Tamayo. Who has a better right to Mara?

Answer:
The meeting of the minds between Susie and Baste was on September 5, therefore from
that moment on the right to Mara is actually given to Baste and supported by Article
1164, however since Mara was not yet delivered to Baste then Baste still has no real
right over Mara but Baste has the right to demand from Susie the fulfillment of his
obligation to deliver Mara on 5 th of October. But then on September 20, Susie sold Mara
to Tamayo which is another entity not aware and included in Susie and Baste’s contract
and agreement, therefore as supported by Article 1170. On September 20, the right to
have Mara is entitled to Tamayo and Susie shall be responsible and liable to the
damages caused for not doing the contract in good faith.