1. A and B agreed to meet at the Manila Hotel at 7 p.m. on December 25, 2020.

Is there
a contract between A and B? Explain.

In the Article 1318,

“There is no Contract unless the following requisites concur

(1) Consent of the contracting parties

(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established”

All contracts are agreement but not all agreements are contracts. A and B have an
agreement to meet at the Manila Hotel at 7 p.m on December 25, 2020 and there is no
compliance on the requisites of the contract.

2. X and Y entered into a contract of sale wherein the former shall deliver to the latter
ten bottles of brandy. X delivered ten bottles but two of them were filled with brandy
diluted with black tea. Is X liable?

In the article of 1159, “Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law
between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith”

In this particular instance, X handed over 10 bottles, but two of them contained
brandy that had been watered down with black tea. The fact that the two bottles are
filled with black tea that was not included in their contract, nor in Y's awareness.
Since X did not cooperate in good faith, X is responsible for his/her actions. After
collecting the advantages of a contract, if one of the parties does not comply with
lawful responsibilities, this would be considered unfair enriching on the part of the
non-complying party.

3. W died alone. Z, a third person, shouldered the funeral expenses because W had no
known relatives. After W was buried, Y appeared and introduced himself as the
brother of W. Can Z ask reimbursement from Y?
4. Article 2165 stated that “When funeral expenses are borne by a third person, without
knowledge of those
5. relatives who were obliged to give support to the deceased, said relatives shall reimburse
the third person,
6. should the latter claim the reimbursement.
7. Article 2165 stated that “When funeral expenses are borne by a third person, without
knowledge of those
8. relatives who were obliged to give support to the deceased, said relatives shall reimburse
the third person,
9. should the latter claim the reimbursement.

It is stated in Article 2165, “When funeral expenses are borne by a third person,
without knowledge of those relatives who were obliged to give support to the
deceased, said relatives shall reimburse the third person, should the latter claim the
reimbursement.”

Therefore, Z have rights to request compensation from Y and Y is the one that
should reimburse Z also Z is the one who should claim the refund.

4. During a big storm, A saved the dog of his neighbour B, who was not at home at
that time. After a week, B came home and was happy to see his dog alive and
well. A asked B to reimburse him of the expenses he incurred in taking care of his
dog. Identify the juridical tie, prestation, creditor and debtor.

In this particular incident, the juridical tie is Quasi-Contracts but specifically it is

Negotiorum Gestio, it serves as the effective cause or the legal connection. The
dog that is healthy and alive serves as the precondition or the subject matter of a
responsibility. A (debtor), who was the one who ended up saving the dog and B
(creditor) is the one who owes money to A.

The efficient
cause or the
juridical tie of
this case is
Quasi-Contracts
specifically
Negotiorum
Gestio. The
prestation or the
subject matter
of the
obligation is the
well and alive
dog. A, the one
who saved the
dog,
is the debtor
and his
neighbor B is
the creditor
Reference
https://www.chanrobles.com/civilcodeofthephilippinesbook4.htm