JOHN RAYMUND CENIZA;

StudentID: 2020018612

Strengths and Improvement Opportunities

7079 Midterm Exam (Essay)
Course: 7079 - Llb 223 |Credit Transactions ‡Instructor: Christian Fernandez ‡Questions: 9
StdDev = 8.61‡Mean = 60.4‡Median = 60.5‡Rank = 22/30‡Percentile Rank = 28.3333

68.75% My Score
75.50%Average Score
(55/80) (60.4/80)

QUESTION POINTS
CORRECT INCORRECT PARTIAL CREDIT You (Peers)
1 5/5
(3.87/5)
A: No, Lening is not correct. Under the Law on Commodatum, a bailee has no right of retention unless it is for damages resulting
from the poor quality of the thing borrowed. Lening refuses to return the car because of Digang's past obligation to her which does
not fall as an exception under the law. Therefore, Lening cannot retain the car she borrowed.
Grader Feedback: N/A

2 3/5
(3.93/5)
A: In Commodatum, the bailee is responsible for the ordinary expenses of the thing borrowed. If BVM borrows Lenlen's roadbike,
BVM must shoulder the daily expenses required to maintain the bike. Extraordinary expenses may be made by the bailee, after due
notification to the bailor or even without if delay would result into danger. Necessary extraordinary expenses needed for the ordinary
used of the thing borrowed shall be shouldered by both the bailor and bailee. For example, Sara borrowed Kiko's Chef's knife which
has become dull due to intense usage. The expenses needed to pay for the services of a master knife sharpener should be
shouldered by both Sara and Kiko.
Grader Feedback: N/A

3 5/10
(9.07/10)
A: Mutuum transfers ownership to the debtor and deals only with money and other fungible things. A mutuum may also have a
stipulation for interest and may be onerous. While a commodatum does not transfer ownership to the bailee and an immovable or
movable property may be the subject of it. It is also gratuitous and bailor may demand of the thing at any time, if agreed upon.
Grader Feedback: Please study. This is a very basic question and you are asked to give at least 4 distinctions.

4 10/10
(8.13/10)
A: No, the case is not proper. Under the Civil Code, a deposit made to a bank shall be governed by the law on Simple Loan and in
such cases the ownership of the thing deposited transfers from the depositor to the bank. The relationship of which makes the
depositor, a creditor and the bank,a debtor. In the case at bar, Sara G. has already transferred onwership to the bank and to
consummate the crime of estafa, ownership must be born by the complainant. Since Sara G. is, legally, not the owner of the
deposited amount, the bank cannot have misappropriated her funds. Hence, Estafe through misappropriation is not the proper case.
Grader Feedback: N/A

5 10/10
(6.77/10)
A: No, the bank is not correct. The doctrine laid down in the case of Equitable PCI Bank vs. Ng Shong Nor states that an escalation
clause that is dependent only on the will of one party violates the principle of mutuality of contracts and is null and void. In the case
at bar, Tito, Vic, and Joey's failure to object the increased interest rate and their voluntary signing thereof does not affect the nullity
of the escalation clause they have entered. Since the increases in the interest rate only depended upon the will of Will's bank, it
should be null and void.
Grader Feedback: N/A
 6 10/10
(7.87/10)
A: The hotel is liable for the Ivana's lost property. Under the civil code, hotel and inn keepers are liable for lost property resulting
from its negligence or as a result of its employee's fault unless caused by force majeure. It also provides that any stipulation waiving
the liability of hotel and innkeepers, as provided by law, shall be void. Ivana lost her items because of the direct actions of thievery
by Loonyo and Mariel who are both hotel staff. It was not caused by force majeure or by actions made by the guest or her friends
which places the fault to the hotel itself. The waiver contract which was signed by Ivana is also void is it is expressly prohibited by
law. Consequently, the hotel is responsible for the losses Ivana incurred.
Grader Feedback: N/A

7 4/10
(7.90/10)
A: A guaranty secures the solvency of the debtor while a surety secures the debt together with the principal debtor. A guaranty
cannot be held principally liable in case of insolvency while the surety is solidarily liable to the debtor. A guaranty is a secondary
contract while a surerty is a principal contract. A guaranty has the benefit of excussion which a surety does not have. A contract of
guaranty is a nominate contract while a contract of surety is not.
Grader Feedback: A guaranty is a secondary contract while a surerty is a principal contract. A contract of guaranty is a nominate
contract while a contract of surety is not. where did you get these answers? is thre such thing as secondary contract vis-a-vis
principal contract? and are you sure that you understand what is nominate contract?

8 5/10
(5.33/10)
A: Yes, the foreclosure proceeding is proper. In the Lara's Gifts case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of an interest rate of
24% per annum which was agreed by both the contracting parties respecting the right of individuals to freely enter into contract with
each other. Also, the Usury Law has now been suspended by Central Bank Circular 709 which, in effect, places no more ceiling of
interest. In the case at bar, Landring and Espiritits entered into the contract of loan freely and without vitiation of consent. An
interest rate is even expressly agreed upon. Applying the Lara's Gifts doctrine, both parties must be left as is. The foreclosure,
although unfortunate, is only proper becaude of Landring's inability to pay.
Grader Feedback: be responsive to teh question

9 3/10
(7.53/10)
A: The guarantor may proceed against debtor if the nature of the debt cannot be finished even after 10 years. The guarantor can
also proceed if he has reasonable doubt as to the solvency of the debtor.
Grader Feedback: N/A

©2022 ExamSoft Worldwide LLC. All Rights Reserved.