FELIBETH D.

LINGA
OBLICON PRELIM

QUESTION NO.1
Yes, the respondent is correct because in the case of Miguel versus Catalino the
court held that the Petitioner were now estopped from questioning the deed of sale.
Moreover, the elements of laches are present, whereas latches is concerned with the
effect of the delay. It is principally a question of inequity of permitting to be enforced
that this being founded to the some changes in the condition of the property or the
relation of the parties. Thus, the petitioner cause of action is barred by laches and
prescription since it has been open continuous and exclusive possession of the
property for forty (40) years.

QUESTION NO.2
In the case of Buenaventura versus CA and Manotok Realty Inc. it distinguish
Prescription from Laches, whereas Prescription concerned to the fact of delay and
Laches is concerned to the effect of the delay. Prescription is a matter of time on the
other hand Laches is principally a question to be enforced, this enquity being founded
on the same change the condition of the property of the relation of the parties.
Prescription is statutory applied by positive law. Laches is not statutory. Prescription
is based on time provided by law while Laches applies inequity and not based on fix of
time.

QUESTION NO. 3
Yes, in the case of Vda de Alberto vs. CA the court held guilty of laches because
consistently declared that laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time and the negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time, warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned it.

QUESTION NO. 4

Acquisitive Prescription refers to the type of prescription by the virtue of

which acquires ownership and other real rights from the lapse of time, and in
the manner of other conditions provided or laid down by law while Extinctive
Prescription it refers by lapse of time and shall be barred from claiming rights
that has already acquired.
QUESTION NO. 5
The reason why the respondent have the obligation to provide free parking
spaces to their customers, because according to the law it enables for Implementing
Rules and Regulations do not impose that parking spaces shall be provided by the
mall owners free of charge, which states in Article 1158 of the Civil Code is clear an
states that "Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly
determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable and shall be regulated by
the precepts of the law which establishes them.

QUESTION NO.6
The source of obligation of D by breach of contract No, because there is no
contract between P and Y, but it can recover based on delict, reckless imprudence
resulting to physical injury and death of P. Both P and Y can recover based on Qausi-
delict because the driver is negligent. As to the Employer Yes , because P and Y has a
contract of carriage with the owner and not with the driver, also can claim based on
quasi-delict, however by invoking vicarious liability of the employer under Art. 2180.
QUESTION NO. 7
Rule on the effect of the death of the accused as to the civil liability arising from delict.
In the case of People versus Galicia, he accused-appellant during the pendency of
their appeal extinguishes not only their criminal liabilities, but their civil liabilities as
well for damages arising solely from the said crimes. The death of the accused likewise
extinguished the civil liability that was based exclusively on the crime for which the
accused was convicted, because there is no final judgment of conviction that was not
yet rendered by the time of his death. Only civil liability predicated on a source of
obligation other than the delict survived the death of the accused, which means there
must be a separate legal action.
QUESTION NO. 8
It depends, if the reason why there was an acquittal was because the accused
could not have committed the act , or based on innocence , no civil action can later on
be brought. If the reason for the acquittal was because of an exempting circumstance.

QUESTION NO. 9
Yes, because of the period stated in the compromise agreement which was
expired that within 70 days the defendant must fulfill its obligation. According to the
law if you agreed and enter into contract with terms and condition you are obligated to
do your responsibility.
QUESTION NO.10
Default begin when the period of time lapses.
QUESTION NO. 11

QUESTION NO. 12
Fortuitous event refers to the events which could not be foreseen, or which, though
foreseen, were inevitable; force majeure. The requisites of a fortuitous event are: The
cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence; It must be impossible to foresee
the event which constitute the case caso fortuito, or foreseen but impossible to avoid;
Occurrence must be of such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the
obligation in a normal manner and lastly the obligor must be free from any
participation in, or aggravation of, the injury resulting to the creditor.
QUESTYION NO. 13
QUESTION NO. 14
Potestative Condition is dependent on the will of one of the parties.If dependent on the
will of the debtor the suspensive is void and the resolutory is valid if dependent on the
will of the creditor bothe suspensive and resolutory is valid. Casual Condition which
depends on chance, hazard, or the will of a third person and lastly Mixed Condition,
depends not only upon the will of the debtor but also upon some chance or some other
factors.
QUESTION NO. 15
QUESTION NO. 16
Condition is uncertain, future events which yield an influence on a legal or juridical
relationship while term or period there is a specific laps of time.
QUESTION NO. 17

QUESTION NO. 18
Under Article 1191 The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in
case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The
injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation,
with the payment of damages in either case. The court shall decree the rescission
claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.

QUESTION NO. 19
QUESTION NO. 20
Yes, because there is a period of time which the obligation of A did not fulfill
and the surety bond is not renewed and balance has not been paid so B has the
authority over the claim.