I.

The sources of obligation of D against P is Delict and as for his passenger Y, Quasi-
Delict while the obligation of D's employer to P may be predicated Quasi-Delict. As
for the employer, P and Y may predicate their claim against the former based on
Quasi-Delict under Art. 2180 or Vicarious Liability.

Under the Code, the sources of obligation are law, contract, quasi-contract, delict
and quasi-delict. Delict or criminal negligence refers to those obligations that arise
as a consequence for committing a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
Quasi-delict, on the otherhand are acts or ommisions made by a person that causes
damage to another by reason of fault or negligence and without the existence of a
pre-existing contract.

In the case at bar, since the reckless driving of D was the proximate cause of P's
death, then D may be made liable for a crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting to
Homicide under the Revised Penal Code. As to D's passenger Y, his liability will be
for Quasi-Delict since there was no pre-existing contract between parties and the
driver's reckless act was the clear reason for the damage brought to passenger Y.
An action also for quasi-delict may also be filed by P and Y against the employer of D
because under ARt. 2180 on vicarious liability, employers are held primarily and
directly liable for the actions of their employees in performing their duties. The
employer may however, use a defense the he exercised due diligence in the selection
of his employees in order to negate such liability.

II.

Ahfat's contention is correct.

Damages is granted as compensation or remuneration for the harm and wrong done
by one against another.

Here, in this case, Ahfat did not abuse its rights when it did not accept Atty. Cloydie's
card because aside from the fact that it was expired, such card is not a form of legal
tender under our jurisdiction, hence, there was no obligation for Ahfat to receive it
as payment. Nothing in the facts say that the act of the cashier was humiliating or
inappopriate.

Thus, Ahfat is correct.

3.

The respondents are correct as to their contention.

In a Contract of Sale, the ownership is immediately transferred to the buyer upon

the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract.
Here, the execution of the deed of sale by the parties contemplate a perfected
contract of sale. The petitioners is guilty of laches in this case since after the
perfection of said contract, they did not do any act to recover the possession thereof
should it be true that they were not paid by the purchase price.

4.

Respondents have no obligation to provide free parking spaces to their customers.

As provided under the law, the sources of obligation are as follows:

1. Law
2. Contracts
3. Quasi-Contracts
4. Delict
5. Quasi Delict

The list provided by law is exclusive in nature. In the case at bar, since there was
nothing in the law, National Building Code of the Philippines that expressly prohibits
building owners from collecting parking fees, then the respondents may rightfully
collect the same.

At the least, the building owners' obligation to provide free parking is based on
natural obligation given that the these parking areas will benefit, among all else,
their customers.

5.

The effect of the death of the accused as to his civil liability arising from delict while
his case is pending will be extinguished.

6.

No. Asian financial Crisis does not constitute a Fortuitous event.

A fortuitous event that would justify the delay in the performance of an obligation
should constitute the following requisites:

1. The happening of the condition must be independent from human will;

2. It must be an occurrence that cannot be foreseen, or if foreseen, is inevitable;
3. The debtor must be free from fault, negligence or delay;
4. The event must have rendered the thing or the service impossible to deliver or
render as the case may be.

In the case at bar, Asian Financial Crisis fall short of the requisites for it to be
considered as a fortuitous event. The financial crisis, while it may be an
international phenomenon in the business world, it, definitely, is not independent
from human will and such an occurrence can be foreseen through research and
forecast reports.

Hence, to predicate the delay based on this Financial Crisis cannot be justified.

7.

The defense of B is not tenable.

A contract of sale is perfected by mere consent.With regards to movable properties,

the ownership of the thing shall be transferred to the buyer upon the delivery of
such thing.

Here, in this case, there was already a perfected contract of sale between A and B as
the delivery of the iron ore to B divests the latter of ownership over the same. The
condition that the obligation be paid upon the sale of the items provides only for the
period to pay the obligation and not a positive suspensive condition. Hence, A may
ask the court to fix the period for him to pay the balance and recovery the same
thereafter.

8.

No. Alma doesn't have to give Bea anything. The loss of the thing due, without
debtor's fault, extinguishes the obligation.

Here, Alma promised to give "her" car and not just any car to Bea thus, the loss of
the same through a fortuitous event extinguishes her obligation to the former.

9.

The contract entered into by the parties is more on a contract of agency and not
contract of sale. As such, the contract was not novated by Bordador's acceptance of
partial payment.

In novation, in order that an obligation be extinguished by one which substitutes

another, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms and that the new
and old obligation must be, on every point, incompatible with each other.

Here, there was no express showing that upon the receipt of partial payment, the
parties intend to extinguish the old obligation. Moreso, both the new and old
obligations can stand together thus, negating the requirement of incompatibility.

Hence, Degañ os contention is not tenable.

9.
Yes. Gorgonio can demand for reimbursement from Liberty Insurance Corporation.

Under the law, certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to a juridical
relation of quasi contract to the end that no one shall be enriched and unjustly
benefitted at the expense of another.

The act of Gorgonio in paying the client out of his own pocket was lawful and
voluntary and was made for and in behalf of the company. His acts were within the
scope of his authority and job as a manager thereof. To deny him of such
reimbursement would unjustly enriched the company and deny him of justice.

Thus, Gorgonio can demand for reimbursement.

10.

No. The Ferrers are not justified.

One of the modes provided under the law in order to extinguish an obligation is
through tender and consignation. Here, a legal tender of payment must be first made
and should there be refusal, a consignation should be sought thereafter, notifying all
the interested parties for the said act and consigning in court the consideration
involved. Consignation may also be immediately made even when there is no tender
of payment if the title to the obligation are being held by two or more persons.

Here, in this case, it was not correct for the Ferrers to skip payment because of the
alleged squabble in the said company as to who will receive payment. What it should
have done was to undergo the process of consignation or file an action for
interpleader in order to determine to whom should the payments be made.

Hence, the Ferrers are not justified.

12.

Article 1169 of the New Civil Code provides:

Those obliged to deliver something or to render some service incur in delay from
the moment the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from him the
fulfillment of the obligation.

However, demand may not be necessary when:

1. When the law or declaration expressly so states;

2. When from the nature and circumstances of the obligation it appears that the
designation of time from which the thing is to be delivered or the performance is to
be rendered was the controlling motive for the establishment of the obligation
3. When demand would be useless as the debtor has rendered it beyond his power
to fulfill his obligation.

In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs delay if one does not or is not ready to
comply with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one fulfills his
obligation, delay by the other begins.

13.

No. The action will not prosper.

Under Article 1381 of the New Civil Code, rescissible contracts may involve contract
entered into by the guardian in behalf of the ward where the latter has suffered
lesion of more than one fourth of the properties under the said guardian's
administration.

In the case at bar, the amount Socorro declared to the court as the sale price is
P14,700 and the amount covering the conveyance was P15,000. Worthy to note, that
the P300.00 difference, which in this case the ward has suffered, does not constitute
one fourth of the total value of the sale.

Hence, rescission will no prosper.

14.

There was no double sale.

In double sale, the following requisites must be present:

1. There are 2 or more valid sale transactions;

2. That the sale was made by one vendor;
3. That the 2 or more buyers fights ownership over one and the same thing

Here, all the above mentioned requisites are not present in this case. Thus, there
was no double sale.

15.

The sale was valid but only up to the value of the share of Esparanza in the co-
ownership.

As a general rule, gross inadequacy of the price does not affect the validity of the
contract unless it is a defect in the consent of the parties.

Here, it has been stated that other co-owners were not really aware of the sale
between the parties. The absence of such consent clearly invalidates the sale but
only as to the value of the share of the co-owners who have not given their consent
to such deed since Esperance may validly sell and dispose her share in the co-
ownership but only as to the aliquot portion thereof.

16.

Maceda Law applies to sale of immovable by installment specifically residential

properties.

Under such law, Nonato has the following rights:

1. If he has paid monthly installments amounting to less than two years, he shall be
given 60 days to settle his unpaid installments without interest.

2. If he has paid installments for more than two years, he may:

a. be given a grace period of one month for every year of payment to pay the unpaid
installments without interest; or

b. choose to cancel the contract and he should be given a cash surrender value
amounting to 50% of the total amounts paid plus an additional 5% per year if he
paid more than 5 years but not to exceed 90% of the total amounts paid.

In any case, the mandatory twin requirement of notice of cancellation by a notarial

act and the lapse of the thirty day period counted from the receipt of such debtor of
the cancellation must be complied with to effect the cancellation.

17.

Yes. The Trial Court is correct.

In a sale involving movables by installment, the vendor has the following remedies:

1. Exact fulfillment of the obligation

2. Cancel the Sale
3. Foreclose the mortgage.

Should the vendor chooses to foreclose the mortgage, then he cannot anymore ask
for the recovery of any deficient amount arising from the said loan.

In this case, the trial court is correct in its decision because as stated, it compels first
the buyer to settle his loan obligation and only when he fails to comply, shall the
mortgage be foreclosed.

18.
An absolute contract of sale immediate conveys to the buyer ownership of the thing
at the time the contract is perfected while in a conditional contract of sale, the seller
imposes a condition to be complied with before the ownership of the thing passes to
the new buyer. However, here, the ownership is automatically vested to the latter
once the condition has been fulfilled without the need of executing another
document.

A contract of sell, on the otherhand, is a preparatory contract that does not convey
ownership over the property to the new buyer. Usually, the payment of the
consideration is the positive suspensive condition that gives rise to an obligation on
the part of the buyer to convey title. Here, another document must be made to effect
the ownership.

In the case at bar, what was entered into by Romulo and Ramona was a Contract to
Sell since there was no showing, based on the wordings of their contract that
ownership is transferred to Ramona immediately after the receipt of the down
payment. Absent such provision, the agreement shall be construed as on Contract to
Sell.

The different methods of acquiring land titles are:

1. Homestead patent;
2. Sales Patent;
3. Free Patent
4. Lease