Situation 1: Certain co-heirs assigned, in 1939 in favor of a

co-heir, a parcel of land in Loakan, Baguio. The document

was registered in 1940. The assignors sued in 1958 for the
annulment of the assignment, claiming that they
thought they were signing a mere authority to sell, not the sale
itself. Has the time to file an action expired?

Yes, the time to file an action has expired. According to

article 1391, The action for annulment must be filed within four
years. The period to submit an action has already passed because
the assignors' action was completed more than 4 years ago.

Situation 2: A challenges B to a chess match; loser to pay the

winner ₱100,000. B accepts the challenge. A wins the
match but B refuses to pay. May A sue B for the ₱100,000? Why or
why not?

A has the right to sue B. Although no written document

demonstrates the losing party's commitment, it is still regarded
as an obligation since it meets all of the contract's
requirements. This is enough to claim that A has the right to
sue B for P100,000.

Situation 3: S, a minor, sold a property to B. Later, the sale

is annulled on the grounds of S’s minority. Is S bound to return
the price received by him?

Yes, S is obligated to repay B for the money he got.

According to article 1399 of the civil code, when a contract's
defect is one of the parties' incapacity, the incapacitated
person is not obligated to make any restitution unless he has
been benefited by the thing or price received by him, so S is
only obligated to make reparation to the degree that he was
profited by the price he received.

Situation 4: In the same problem, suppose S, upon reaching the

age of majority, decided to ratify or respect the contract. Has
B the right to refuse the ratification and demand mutual
restitution of the property and the price?

Yes, B has the right to deny ratification and demand

reciprocal property and price recovery. According to the article
1312 of the civil code, ratification does not necessitate the
conformity of the contracting party who has the right to bring
an action for annulment. As a result, because S consented to the
contract while he was a minor, he renounces his rights in the
event of any contract defects. As a result, B can simply ignore
S's demands to honor the contract once he hits the age of
majority.

Situation 5: Again, in the same problem, suppose the sale was

annulled by the court, what are the rights of the parties if the
property was lost or destroyed?

By the fault of B

According to the civil code's article 386, every person who

through an act of performance by another, or any other means,
acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of
the latter without just or legal. ground, shall return the same
to him. As a result, if the item was lost or destroyed due to
no fault of B's, there is no additional responsibility to
restore the contract's subject matter.

Through the fault of B

B's responsibility is not discharged if the property is

lost or destroyed due to his negligence, but he is liable for
damages. According to the article 386 of the civil code, If the
thing is lost through the fault of the debtor, he shall be
obliged to pay damages. Therefore, B must pay damages equal to
the item's worth.

Situation 6: T, an insane person, entered into a contract with

C, a minor. What is the effect of ratification?

By either; and
 Since both the insane person and the minor are incapable of
providing, the ratification will not take effect. According to
article 1407 of the civil code. If the parties are capable to
give permission, the contract is unenforceable,

By both, after becoming incapacitated.

They can ratify their earlier acts if the parties' grounds

for incapacity, such as minority, have reached majority age, or
if they have restored their sanity. There is no need for the
legislation to clearly state this because it is assumed.

Situation 7: ​D (debtor) owes C (creditor) ₱10,000. T (third

person) orally promised to assume the obligation of D. Can the
promise of T be proved by the testimony of a witness who was
present when T made the same?

No, since T cannot claim that the contract between D and C

is void under the Frauds Statute. T is unfamiliar with the deal.
T cannot challenge a contract because it is unenforceable since,
according to the article of the civil code, an agreement
hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action unless the same,
or some note or memorandum thereof, is in writing, and signed by
the party charged, or his agent. As a result, an agreement
cannot be met without a written agreement or secondary proof of
its terms from a particular pledge to answer for another's debt.

Situation 8: S orally agreed to sell his piano for P7,000 to B

who made a partial payment of P1,000. Later, S denied there was
such a sale. Can B enforce the sale considering that the
contract was oral and the price was more than P500?

Yes, B has the authority to enforce the transaction.

According to Article 1403, the following contracts are
unenforceable, unless they are ratified: those entered into in
the name of another by one without, or acting in excess of,
authority; those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds;
those where both parties are incapable of giving. Since none of
these things transpired in this contract, S' denial is
insufficient to declare the sale void.
Situation 9: S (seller) and B (buyer) entered an absolutely
simulated contract of sale of a parcel of land. S brought action
in court to recover the land only after 20 years. Is it correct
for the court to dismiss the action because of the
long lapse of time?

The court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit due to the

considerable gap of time is inappropriate. Article 1410
establishes that the action or defense for declaring the
nonexistence of a contract does not apply. This demonstrates
that if a contract is void, a party to it can always bring a
civil action to proclaim it void or non-existent, and that a
party seeking to enforce a void contract can always raise the
defense of nullification, even if time has passed.
Situation 10: W (woman) agreed to stay in the house of M (man)
as the latter’s live-in partner for one year in consideration of
the latter’s promise to pay her ₱100,000 after said period. W
complied with her part of the agreement, but M reneged on his
promise. Is W entitled to recover from M?

No, W has no right to claim compensation from M. When both

contracting parties are at fault, according to article 386 of
the civil code, neither party may recover what he has given by
virtue of the contract, nor demand the performance of the
other's undertaking; Because the promise of does not constitute
a crime, there can be no retrieval by one against another, and
neither participant may demand the fulfillment of the other's
promise.