p

1. Anne sold to John her dog named Max to be delivered on May 10, 2021, as Anne
was in need of money, he again sold Max and delivered it to Jason. Who has
better right over Max?

John is the one who has a better right over Max. Given the fact that Max has already
been sold to John, we can say that John is the first person who has been contracted with
Anne. According to Article 1544 of the Civil Code, if the same thing should have been
sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may
have first taken possession thereof in good faith. In line with the said article, it is clearly
that the person who has better right over Max is John.

With regard to Max, John has superior standing. John is the first person who has a
contract with Anne, since Max has already been sold to John, according to what we
know about Max's sale. In accordance with Article 1544 of the Civil Code, the person
who may have initially taken possession of the thing in good faith shall receive
ownership of it if it should have been sold to separate vendees. According to the
aforementioned article, John obviously has more legal authority over Max.

The person who has a superior claim over Max is John. We can say that John is the first
person who has a contract with Anne because Max has already been sold to John.
According to Article 1544 of the Civil Code, ownership of an item is passed to the person
who may have first taken possession of it in good faith if it were to have been sold to
different vendees. According to the aforementioned article, John has a better claim to
Max than anyone else.

2. Patricia saw in Facebook an offer by Jethro for the sale of palabok, for pick-up,
the following day at 3 pm. Patricia reserved 5 packs. She arrived at the place of
pick up at 3 30 pm but her reserved palabok was already sold by Jethro to a walk-
in customer. Is Jethro liable for selling the palabok reserved by Patricia

Yes, Jethro is liable for selling palabok reserved by Patricia. Given the fact that Patricia
reserved those five packs of palabok, Jethro must fulfil his obligation of performance.
According to Article 1167 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, if the person obliged to do
something and fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost. Additionally, RA
1163 states that every person obliged to give something is also obliged to take care of it
with the proper diligence of a good father of a family, unless the law or the stipulation of
the parties requires another standard of care. Jethro still sell the reserved palabok to a
walk-in customer even though he knows that these palabok were being reserved by
Patricia. His action makes him not do his obligation to Patricia which makes her liable to
the latter.
 Yes, Jethro is responsible for selling the palabok that Patricia had reserved. Patricia had
reserved those five packs of palabok, therefore Jethro has to fulfill his performance duty.
According to Article 1167 of the Philippine Civil Code, if someone is required to perform
something but doesn’t, it would be done at their expense.
According to RA 1163, every person who is required to give something is also required
to care for it with the due diligence of a good father of a family, unless the law or the
parties’ agreement calls for a different degree of care. Even though Jethro is aware that
Patricia reserved these palabok, he yet sells them to a walk-in customer. Because of his
behavior, he is unable to fulfill his duty to Patricia, leaving her responsible to the latter.

3. Don sold to Michael a specific phone to be delivered before May 15, 2021. Don
failed to deliver the said phone on the agreed date. Is Don guilty of legal delay.

No, Don is not yet guilty of legal delay. Although Don failed to deliver the phone to
Michael, it is not stated that Michael demand Don to fulfil his obligation. According to
Article 1169, those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the
obligee judicially or extra judicially demands from them the fulfilment of their obligation. It
clearly state that Don is not guilty of legal delay.

No, Don has not yet engaged in legal delay. Despite Don’s failure to bring the phone to
Michael, it is not specified that Michael demanded Don to fulfill his duty. According to
Article 1169, people who are obligated to deliver or do something suffer a delay from the
point at which the obligee legally or extralegally requests that they fulfill their
commitment. It states unequivocally that Don is not responsible for the legal delay.

4. Olivia sold a specific female cat to Kairo to be delivered on May 15,2021. On May
10,2021, the cat gave birth to a kitten. What are the obligations of Olivia. Who is
the owner of the Kitten.

Olivia’s obligation is to still deliver the cat to Kairo and the kitten will be owned by Kairo.
According to Article 1166 of the Civil Code, the obligation to give a determinate thing
includes that of delivering all its accessions and accessories, even though they may not
have been mentioned. In the case of Olivia and Kairo, Olivia have to deliver the female
cat to Kairo together with its kittens even though it is not mentioned in their agreement,
Besides, philosophically speaking, kittens cannot be isolate from its mother due to its
natural needs. Basically, Kairo will received the female cat and its kitten.
 The kitten will still be Olivia's responsibility to give to Kairo, who will then be the owner of
the cat. According to Article 1166 of the Civil Code, even if they may not have been
specifically mentioned, the need to deliver all of a thing's accessions and accessories is
also a requirement for giving a specific object. Even though it is not mentioned in their
agreement, Olivia and Kairo's situation requires her to give the mother cat and her
kittens to Kairo. Furthermore, from a philosophical standpoint, kittens cannot be
separated from their mothers due to their physiological needs. In essence, Kairo will get
the mother cat and the kitten.
5. While walking from PLM towards Manila City Hall, Kevin borrowed 10,000 from
Emman, to be payable in 30 days with an interest of 5%. The following day, Kevin
called Emman to unilaterally revoke the payment of interest. Is Kevin liable for
interest.

Yes, Kevin is still liable for interest. Given the fact that Kevin has borrowed money from
Emman, he has the obligation to pay the principal amount plus the interest it will earn
within thirty days. Kevin asked Emman to unilaterally revoke the payment of interest but
it is not stated that Emman agreed from the said agreement. According to law under the
New Civil Code of the Philippines, No. VII, 6 – Duty to pay interest, if the parties have
not agreed otherwise, the debtor who does not pay a sum of money when it falls due has
to pay to the creditor interest on that sum from the time when payment is due. Therefore,
Kevin is still liable to pay for the interest of the amount the principal amount he borrowed
from Kevin.

Yes, Kevin is still responsible for paying interest. Given that Kevin borrowed money from
Emman, he is responsible for repaying the principal plus interest within thirty days.
Although it is not indicated that Emman agreed from the said agreement, Kevin urged
Emman to unilaterally rescind the payment of interest.

According to law under the New Civil Code of the Philippines, No. VII, 6 – Duty to pay
interest, if the parties have not agreed otherwise, the debtor who does not pay a sum of
money when it falls due has to pay to the creditor interest on that sum from the time
when payment is due. Therefore, Kevin is still liable to pay for the interest of the amount
the principal amount he borrowed from Kevin.

Yes, interest is still owed by Kevin. Given that Kevin borrowed money from Emman, he
is responsible for returning it together with any accrued interest within a 30-day period. It
is not indicated that Emman accepted from the said agreement when Kevin asked her to
unilaterally revoke the payment of interest.

6. Jm sold a specific car to Bj to be delivered on May 15,2021. The car was totally
wrecked when Jm accidentally drive in to a tree on May 10, 2021. Will Jm be liable
for his failure to deliver the car on May 15, 2021.
 Yes, Jm will be deemed liable for his failure to deliver the car to Bj. Given the fact that
Jm has sold specific car to Bj that was to be delivered on May 5, 2021 he will be liable
for his negligence which causes car to be totally wrecked due to accident. According to
Article 1170 on Law on Obligations and Contract, those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. Given this article, it can be clearly
state that Jm is liable for his failure to deliver the specific car to Bj.

Yes, Jm will be held accountable for failing to give Bj the car. Given that Jm sold a
certain car to Bj and that it was scheduled to be delivered on May 5, 2021, he will be
held accountable for his negligence if an accident results in the car being completely
ruined. According to Article 1170 on Law on Obligations and Contract, those who in the
performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who
in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. Given this
information, it is obvious that Jm is responsible for failing to deliver the particular car to
Bj.

Yes, Jm will be held responsible for failing to give Bj the car. Given that Jm sold a
specific car to Bj and that it was scheduled to be delivered on May 5, 2021, he will be
held accountable for his negligence if the accident results in the car being completely
totaled. According to Article 1170 of the Law on Commitments and Contracts, people
who engage.
According to Article 1170 on Law on Obligations and Contract, those who in the
performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who
in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. Given this
information, it is obvious that Jm is responsible for failing to deliver the particular car to
Bj.

7. Mike, the creditor, issued a receipt to Rafael, the debtor, for the instalment payment of
the loan principal from March and April, 2021. Can Mike still collect the interest due for
March and April 2021

No,

8. Eric drove his car at night along Espana Boulevard in Maniila at 60km/hr and
accidentally hit an unmarked road barrier. Ashley also drove his car during the
day along Espana Boulevard in Manila and accidentally hit an unmarked barrier.
Both their insurance policy states that accidence due to negligence of the driver is
 not covered. Should Eric or Ashley be paid by the insurance for the damages
incurred by their cars.

No, both Eric and Ashley should not be paid insurance. Given the fact that both drove
their car along Espana Boulevard and accidentally hit an unmark barrier it just clearly
can be identify that the happening is a result of a fortuitous event. According to Article
1174 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, except in cases expressly specified by law, or
when otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for events which could not be
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, where inevitable. Therefore, both Eric and Ashley
should not be paid insurance because of unavoidable accident they experience.
Additionally, their insurance policy states that accidence due to negligence of the driver
is not covered.

No, neither Eric nor Ashley should receive insurance. Given that both parties were traveling
along Espana Boulevard in their vehicles when they accidentally hit an unmark barrier it just
clearly can be identify that the happening is a result of a fortuitous event.
In accordance with Article 1174 of the Philippine Civil Code, no person shall be liable for events
that could not have been anticipated or that, although anticipated, were inevitable, unless
expressly provided for by law, when otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the
obligation requires the assumption of risk. As a result, despite experiencing an avoidable
accident, neither Eric nor Ashley should get insurance payments. Additionally, their insurance
policy specifies that accidents brought on by the driver’s irresponsibility are not covered.