dela Cruz, Mike Angelo R.

Module 8

1. No, Sevie is not liable for the difference to Benie.

" A mere expression of an opinion does not signify fraud, unless made by an expert
and the other party has relied on the former's special knowledge ," according to Article
1341 of the Philippines' New Civil Code. In this case, Sevie sold his right to inheritance from his
father, who had died, to Benie for P500,000, despite the fact that he believes it is worth more
than that. The value turns out to be only P300,000. According to the law, Sevie's act cannot be
considered fraud because his father's statement that it is worth more than P500,000 is merely
an expression of an opinion that does not constitute fraud because his father is not an expert.

2. It actually depends. According to Article 1626 of the Philippines' New Civil Code:
" The debtor who, before having knowledge of the assignment, pays his creditor shall be
released from the obligation". Furthermore, the consent of the debtor is not required prior to
the creditor's ability to assign the credit. It is sufficient to notify the debtor of the assignment in
order for it to have legal consequences. Cedie, the creditor, assigned his credit against Dobie,
the debtor, to Teodie without Dobie's consent in the case at hand. Dobie then compensated
Cedie, who had gone bankrupt. While it was stated that the credit assignment to Teodie was
made without Dobie's consent, it was not stated whether or not Dobie was aware of the
assignment. As a result, we must distinguish. If the assignment was made without Dobie's
knowledge and Dobie paid Cedie before he knew about the assignment, Teodie's obligation to
Dobie has already expired, and Teodie has no right to recover the payment she made to Cedie
from Dobie.

However, if Dobie paid Cedie while she was aware of the assignment or while she was aware
that Cedie had already assigned the credit to Teodie, her obligation was not discharged as a
result of the payment. As a result, Teodie has the right to sue Dobie for the money she paid
Cedie.

3. Sambe has the following legal rights: First he cannot be forced to deliver that which he offered
in exchange; and Second he is entitled to damages. "By the contract of barter or exchange, one
of the parties binds himself to give one thing in consideration of the other's promise to give
another thing.”, according to Article 1638 of the Philippines' New Civil Code. Furthermore,
according to Article 1639 of the same law, "If one of the contracting parties, having received the
thing promised him in barter, proves that it does not belong to the person who gave it, he
cannot be compelled to deliver that which he offered in exchange, but he shall be entitled to
damages." Sambe traded his land parcel for Bembe's new car, as a result, Sambe and Bembe
made a barter or exchange agreement. However, it turns out that the car was subject to a
chattel mortgage and was sold at public auction after Bembe failed to meet the mortgage's
terms. As a result, Sambe the car no longer belonged to Bembe. Sambe cannot be forced to
deliver the parcel of land to Bembe, as provided by law, and he is entitled to damages if Bembe
fails to comply with the agreement.
4. Bembe's rights are first recover what he gave in exchange for a right to damages; however, he
can only use the right to recover what he has delivered while it is in the possession of the other
party, and without disadvantage to any rights acquired in good faith by a third party in the
meantime; or second only demand an indemnity for damages. According to Article 1640 of the
same law: " One who loses by eviction the thing received in barter may recover that which he
gave in exchange with a right to damages, or he may only demand an indemnity for damages.
However, he can only make use of the right to recover the thing which he has delivered while
the same remains in the possession of the other party, and without prejudice to the rights
acquired in good faith in the meantime by a third person." Sambe traded his land parcel for
Bembe's new car in the case at the bar. Bembe, on the other hand, was evicted from the land by
Chambue, who was found to be the true owner in an action brought by him against Sambe.
According to the law, because Bembe was evicted from the land, he has the right to recover the
car he gave in exchange for the land, as long as it is still in Sambe's possession and without
prejudice to any rights acquired in good faith by a third party over the car in the meantime, or
she can only demand an indemnity for damages.