TRUE OR FALSE

1) The debtor does not incur in mora solvendi in a negative obligation

2) There can be no mora in an obligation subject to a negative impossible condition

3) In an alternative obligation, where one of the alternatives is subject to a positive impossible

condition and the other alternative is pure, the creditor may demand payment of the
second alternative only

4) If in an obligation the debtor promises to perform the obligation “come hell and high water”,
he becomes in effect the “insurer” of the obligation.

5) It is theoretically possible to have a contract that contains all the main classification of
obligations in Art. 1231, CC

6) There is mutual agency among solidary co-debtors and mutual guaranty among solidary
co-creditors

7) A solidary co-creditor may condone the whole obligation in favor of one of the solidary co-
debtors and the other co-debtors can be required to pay their corresponding shares to the
solidary debtor in whose favor the total remission was made

8) The apportionable joint obligation in the CC is a join divisible obligation

9) In a joint indivisible obligation if the debtors are in mora solvendi, the creditor may sue all of
the debtors for rescission, plus damages, and all the debtors can be made to pay the
damages, but the debtor who has performed his part may ask for full reimbursement of his
share in the damages.

10) The rule in obligations with a term is that the term is always given for the benefit of both
debtor and creditor; thus the creditor cannot demand payment, and the debtor cannot pay
before the arrival of the period.

11) If the duration of the suspensive period is made to depend upon the sole will of the debtor,
the obligation is void.

12) A generic thing never perishes.

13) An obligation sine die is an obligation with a suspensive term.

14) In the case of Ponce de Leon v. Syjuco, the suspensive period was for the benefit of both
debtor and creditor.

15) A judicial period will result in an obligation, where the time of payment depends upon the
sole will of the debtor.

16) A co-debtor in a joint indivisible obligation shall be liable for default of another co-debtor.

17) In an active solidarity the insolvency of one creditor will inure to the benefit of the others

18) The joint obligation in the CC is a joint divisible obligation.

19) There can be an active solidary indivisible obligation.

20) If on the due date of an obligation to deliver a specific racehorse the creditor makes a
demand upon one of the solidary debtors who fails to deliver it and subsequently the horse
died of anthrax, the creditor may, if he has partially paid for the horse, claim what he paid
and ask for unrealised profits, plus attorney’s fees and cost of litigation.

21) Any even which is outside of the debtor’s will may be considered as a fortuitous event

22) In most of the cases involving fortuitous events, the requisite that is usually crucial in its
non-application is the concurrent negligence on the part of the debtor.

23) In cases involving fortuitous events, if the specific thing deteriorated due to the debtor’s
fault, the obligation shall be extinguished.

24) In a perfected contract of sale over a specific car if the vendee borrows it for a test drive,
but through his negligent driving the vendee wrecked the car, he will have to pay the
purchase price for the car.

25) In the case of Chavez v. Gonzales, the obligation was breached through fraud, negligence,
delay and contravention of the tenor of the obligation.

26) In the forbearance of money, goods or credit, there is no need of agreement between the
creditor and the debtor.

27) There is no more ceiling in the rate of interest which may be charged for a loan or
forbearance of money, goods or credit.

28) In the case of Catungal v. Rodriguez, the seller prevented the happening of the condition,
which is a mixed condition.

29) In the case of Gaite v. Fonacier, if Gaite did not require Fonacier to put up a surety bond for
the payment of the obligation, the obligation would have been subject to a mixed
suspensive condition.

30) In the case of PLDT v. Jeturian, the employees of PLDT had a right to file an action to
preserve their rights under the pension plan, which was subject to a suspensive condition
of reaching the required age and years of service to the company, and PLDT voluntarily
prevented the fulfilment of the conditions

31) In Jaucian v. Querol, the appellation given to a Civil Law join obligation of “apportionable
joint obligation” by the American jurist ponente of the case was a way of contrasting the
joint obligation of Civil Law from the join obligation of Common Law.

32) In a joint and several liability of two signatories to a promissory note, the word “joint”
contemplated a joint obligation of Common Law.

33) A single act or omission can give rise to several causes of action.

34) In a case where the debtor indicates that when the obligation to deliver a specific thing
becomes due and demandable he will not deliver the specific thing, the creditor cannot
 legally require him to do so, because the former has the constitutional right not to be
required to give or to do something he does not want to do.

35) The retroactivity effect of an obligation subject to a condition under Art. 1187 applies only
to a positive suspensive condition.

36) The retroactivity principle, above is also applicable to an obligation to do subject to a

resolutely condition.

37) The rules on loss, deterioration or improvement of a specific thing is applicable only to
obligation to give which is subject to a suspensive condition.

38) In a perfected contract of sale of a house, if the seller improves the house by adding a new
room prior to delivering the same after the vendee has fully paid the purchase price, the
vendor may not demand an additional amount for the improvement from the vendee.

39) In a contract of sale, if the vendee is not ready to pay the purchase price on the date
agreed upon for the consummation of the sale, the vendor, who is ready to deliver the thing
sold, may rescind the obligation and ask for damages.

40) In Question #39 above, the vendee may question the rescission by filing an action for
specific performance, and pay the purchase price and the court shall determine whether
the vendees breach of the obligation was serious or slight; if the breach is slight the court
may grant the vendee a period within which to pay, which period is non-extendible.

41) A day certain cannot be made the basis of a suspensive condition.

42) In a suspensive condition, the obligation does not arise until the happening of the
condition, while in a suspensive period the obligation has been created but its
demandability is subject to the arrival of the future but certain event.

43) In order that the debtor will have the right to choose an alternative in an alternative
obligation, the choice must be expressly given to him, unlike in a facultative obligation
where the choice is always given to the debtor.

MULTIPLE CHOICE
1) In the case of Almeda v. CA and PNB (1996), the SC ruled that:

A. The debtors bound themselves merely to pay 21% interest on the total amount of the
loan, subject to a possible escalation or de-escalation of such interest rate when the
circumstance warrant such escalation or de-escalation, within the limits allowed by law,
and upon agreement.

B. Escalation Clauses are not basically wrong or legally objectionable so long as they are
not solely potestative but based on reasonable and valid standards upon which the
increases are anchored.

C. CB Circular No. 905, series of 1982, did not authorise any bank to unilaterally and
successively increase the agreed interest in violation of P.D 116 which limits such
increases to once every 12 months, thus violating the mutuality of contracts principle.

D. All of the above

2) In this case, the SC held that after Dec. 22, 1982, when Central Bank Circular No. 905
became effective, a loan of forbearance of money, the interest due should be that
stipulated in writing, and in the absence thereof, the rate shall be 12% per annum, and
courts have no discretion to arbitrarily override the stipulated interest rates by lowering it
from 23% to 12% per annum.

A. Crismina Garments v. CA (1999)

B. Keng Hua Products v. CA (1998)

C. First Metro Investment v. Este del Sol (2001)

D. Security Bank v. RTC Makati (1996)

3) In this case, the SC ruled that there was no substantial breach of the reciprocal obligation
necessitating a resolution of the reciprocal obligation.

A. U.P v. De Los Angeles (1970)

B. Song Fo v. Hawaiian Phils (1925)

C. De Erquiaga v. Reynoso and CA (1989)

D. Boysaw v. Interphil Promotions (1987)

4) In this case, the SC discussed the distinction between Art. 1191 and Art 1381

A. U.P v. De Los Angeles (1970)

B. Boysaw v. Interphil Promotions (1987)

C. James Ong v. CA (1999)

 D. All of the Above

5) The perfect example of a case applying “contravention of the tenor of the obligation” as a
ground for breach of an obligation

A. Arrieta v. NARIC (1964)

B. Chavez v. Gonzales

C. Magat v. Medialdea (1983)

D. None of the above

6) Which statement is FALSE?

In the case of Gregorio Araneta Inc. V. The Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co., the SC
ruled that:

A. The contract between Gregorio Araneta Inc. and Phil. Sugar Estates gave the former a
reasonable time within to comply with its obligation to contract and complete the streets in
the NE, NW and SW side do the lot, which reasonable time has elapsed and Gregorio
Araneta Inc. has breached the obligation

B. Granting that the court had the power to fix the period there was no basis to support the
court’s conclusion that the period should be at least two years after the finality of the
judgment

C. Article 1197 involves a 2 step process. The court must first determine that the obligation
does not fix the period or that the period is made to depend upon the will of the debtor;
once this point is settled, then the court must then decide what period is probably
contemplated by the parties.

D. All of the above

7) Which statement is FALSE?

In the case of Inchausti & Co. v. Yulo, the SC

A. Chose to discuss the first three defences raised in the answer of Don. Gregorio Yulo which
hd something to do with (1) compound interest being asked for by Inchausti & Co. in Phil
currency at par with Mexican peso; (2) that two conditions be complied with the promissory
note of Aug 12, 1909 be approved by the Court of First Instance and Mariano R. Yulo ratify
and confirm the promissory note, one of which was complied with; (3) the same debt was
presented before the commissioners in the special proceedings of the settlement of the
estates of the spouses Teodoro Yulo and Gregoria Regalado.

B. Ruled that the promissory note dated May 12, 1911 did not novate the promissory note
dated August 12, 1909 because they were not incompatible.

C. Ruled that there were partial remission of the debt from P253,445.42 to P225,000 which
could benefit Gregorio Yulo as solidary co-debtor but only up to the extent of 1/2 thereof,
because only one-half of it is due, the other half of the May 12, 1911 promissory note was
to mature June 30, 191 as to the 1st installment.

D. All of the above

8) Which of these is not a breach of an obligation:

A. If the debtor tells the creditor that he will not say when the due date of his promissory note
arrives;

B. If the seller, fails to deliver the spare tire of the second hand 2013 Nissan Navara he sold to
the buyer

C. If the seller switches a fake watch for the genuine one of the same brand and model when
the time comes to deliver it to the buyer;

D. None of the above.

9) One of these instances does not create a legal solidary obligation:

A. Among co-principals in the crime of theft or robbery for the return of the things stolen;

B. Two bailees in commodatum who failed to return the horse that they borrowed

C. Two co-owners of property who appointed a common agent to sell their property interest

D. None of the above

10) There is no mora solvendi in one of these situations:

A. Failure to deliver the wedding gown of a bride before the scheduled wedding ceremony

B. In a contract of sale of a particular 2016 X-5 4x4 Mazda pock up where the seller wrecked
it when he drove it against a Meralco pole in an accident 15 days before its delivery

C. If a tax payer files and pays his individual income tax on April 30, 2017 for the 2016 income

D. In a promissory note where the debtor promised to pay the sum of P500,000 on or before
March 15, 2018.

FILL IN THE BLANKS

1. Art. 1191

2. Art. 1169

3. Art. 1165

4. Art. 1189

5. Art. 1197

6. Art. 1198

7. Art. 1222

8. Art. 1217