1.

The duty not to recover what has been voluntarily pald although payment was no longer
required:
a Natural obligation
b. Moral obligation
C.Civil obligation
d. None of the above
The duty not to recover what has been voluntarily paid, although payment was no longer
required, is known as a "natural obligation." In legal terms, a natural obligation is an
obligation that is not enforceable by the law, but which may be fulfilled voluntarily. It
arises from moral, social, domestic, or natural duties that do not have a legal basis.

In this context, if someone voluntarily pays a debt that is no longer legally required, it
creates a natural obligation. The law does not compel the repayment of the amount
since the legal duty to pay has already been extinguished, but the person may feel a
moral or ethical duty to honor the payment.

This concept is often recognized in civil law systems, where natural obligations are
distinguished from civil obligations that are legally enforceable. Civil obligations arise
from a legal duty, while natural obligations arise from a sense of moral or ethical
responsibility.

The answer to the question, which is letter (a) "Natural obligation," indicates that the
duty not to recover what has been voluntarily paid, even when payment was no longer
required, falls under the category of a natural obligation

2. When "A* voluntarily takes charge of the neglected business of B without the latter's authority
where reimbursement must be made for necessary and useful expenses, there is a
a.Quasi delict
b.Quasi contract
c. Negotorium gestio
d. Solutio indebiti

The situation described, where "A" voluntarily takes charge of the neglected business of
"B" without the latter's authority, and reimbursement must be made for necessary and
useful expenses, falls under the legal concept known as "Negotiorum Gestio."

Negotiorum Gestio is a Latin term that translates to "management of affairs." It refers to

a situation where a person (the gestor) voluntarily and without the authority of the
owner (gestor) takes charge of the affairs or business of another person for the latter's
benefit. In such cases, if the actions of the gestor result in necessary and useful
expenses, the owner may be obliged to reimburse the gestor for those expenses.

This concept is recognized in civil law systems and is considered a quasi-contractual

relationship. It is not based on a contract between the parties but is imposed by law to
prevent unjust enrichment and ensure fairness in situations where one person takes
action on behalf of another without explicit authorization.

The correct answer to the question, which is letter (c) "Negotiorum gestio," indicates
that the described scenario aligns with the legal concept of Negotiorum Gestio, where a
person takes charge of another's business without authority, and reimbursement may be
sought for necessary and useful expenses.

3. "A" has been missing for some time leaving no one to manage his properties. B and C jointly
took
charge of the management thereof. However, due to the fault of B, the properties of A were
damaged. The liability thereof to A to fjamages shall be
a. Onlv B shall be liable.
b. Both shall be jointly liable.
c. Both shall be solidarily liable.
d. They are not liable since A is at fault for having abandoned his properties.
In the scenario described, where "A" has been missing, leaving no one to manage his
properties, and "B" and "C" jointly took charge of the management, with damages
occurring due to the fault of "B," the liability for damages to "A" shall be "Both shall be
solidarily liable."

The concept of solidary liability means that each of the joint actors (in this case, "B" and
"C") is individually responsible for the entire obligation. Therefore, if "B" is at fault and
damages occur, both "B" and "C" can be held jointly and severally liable for the resulting
harm.

This principle is often applied in civil law systems to ensure that the injured party (in this
case, "A") can seek compensation from either or both of the individuals responsible for
the damages. It is based on the idea that when multiple parties act together and harm is
caused, they share collective responsibility for the consequences.

The correct answer to the question, which is letter (c) "Both shall be solidarily liable,"
indicates that both "B" and "C" are jointly and severally liable for the damages caused
due to the fault of "B" in managing "A's" properties. This is in line with the legal principle
of solidary liability
4. Culpa aquillana as distinguished from culpa contractual
a. Proof of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not available as a
defense.
b. Proof of the contract and of its breach is sufficient prima face to warrant recovery.
c. The negligence of the defendant is merely an incident in the performance of the obligation.
d. The source of liability is the defendant's negligent act or omission itself.

"Culpa Aquiliana" and "Culpa Contractual" are concepts in civil law that pertain to
different types of liability for negligence. The distinguishing factor lies in the nature of
the relationship between the parties involved.

● Culpa Aquiliana: Also known as "quasi-delict" or "tort," culpa aquiliana involves

the commission of a negligent act or omission that causes harm to another
person. This form of liability arises independently of any pre-existing contract
between the parties. The source of liability is the defendant's negligent act or
omission itself. Therefore, in culpa aquiliana, the focus is on the wrongful act and
the resulting harm.
● Culpa Contractual: On the other hand, culpa contractual pertains to liability
arising from a breach of contract. In this case, there is a pre-existing contractual
relationship between the parties, and the negligence is considered as an incident
in the performance of the contractual obligation. The proof of the contract and its
breach is usually sufficient prima facie to warrant recovery. The liability is based
on the failure to fulfill contractual obligations with the requisite standard of care.

Given the definitions above, the correct answer to the question, which is letter (d) "The
source of liability is the defendant's negligent act or omission itself," is accurate for
culpa aquiliana. This choice correctly identifies that the source of liability in culpa
aquiliana is the negligent act or omission, independent of any contractual relationship.

5.The creditor has a right to the fruits of the thing from

a.The time the thing is delivered.
b. The time the obligation to deliver the thing arises.
c. The time the sale is perfected.
d. The time the fruits are delivered

6.On June 1 2015, Dichoso obliged himself to deliver to Concoion a specific land on July 1,
2015.
This property is being leased to Lalaso at P5,000 per month. Which is correct?
a. Dichoso has to deliver to Corcolon the land including its rental income from June 1, 2015.
b. Dichoso has to deliver to Corcolon the land including its rental income from January 1, 2015.
C.If Dichaso delivers only the land to Corcolon on August 1, 2015 he should also deliver
the
rental income from July 1, 2015.
d. If Dichoso delivers only the land to Corcolon on August 1, 2015 he shall be entitled to the
fruits from August 1, 2015.
The right of the creditor to the fruits of the thing is determined by the point at which the
sale is perfected. In the context of obligations, particularly those related to the delivery
of goods or things, the sale is considered perfected when there is a meeting of the
minds between the buyer and the seller regarding the essential elements of the sale.

The correct answer to the question, which is letter (c) "The time the sale is perfected,"
indicates that the creditor's right to the fruits begins at the moment when the sale is
completed and all the necessary elements for the transaction are agreed upon by both
parties.

The legal basis for this principle can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Specifically, Article 1477 of the Civil Code states:

"The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or
constructive delivery thereof."

This article establishes the general rule that ownership is transferred to the buyer upon
delivery of the thing sold. Therefore, the right to the fruits of the thing, which is
considered one of the incidents of ownership, begins at the time when the sale is
perfected and ownership is transferred to the creditor or buyer.

7.1" Statement: If the thing is determinate, the debtor can be compelled to deliver the thing
promised and upon failure, the creditor has a right to ask for damages.
2* Statement: If the object is generic and the debtor does not comply with the obligation, the
creditor can ask a third person to comply with the prestation at the expense of the debtor, plus
damages.
a. Only the 1# statement is true.
b. Only the 2' statement is true.
c.Both statements are true.
d. Neither statement is true.

Both statements are true, and the correct answer is (c) "Both statements are true."
 ​ Statement 1: If the thing is determinate, meaning it is specifically identified or can
be clearly defined, the debtor can be compelled to deliver the promised thing. If
the debtor fails to deliver, the creditor has the right to ask for damages. This is in
accordance with the general principles of obligations and contracts, where the
debtor is obligated to perform the specific obligation agreed upon, and failure to
do so gives the creditor the right to seek damages.
​ Statement 2: If the object of the obligation is generic, and the debtor fails to
comply, the creditor can ask a third person to perform the obligation at the
expense of the debtor, plus damages. This is in line with the Civil Code of the
Philippines, particularly Article 1165, which states:

"When what is to be delivered is a determinate thing, the creditor, in addition to the right
granted him by Article 1170, may compel the debtor to make the delivery."
"If the thing is indeterminate or generic, he may ask that the obligation be complied with
at the expense of the debtor."

Therefore, both statements accurately reflect the legal principles regarding the
fulfillment of obligations and the rights of the creditor in the Philippines.

8. Which is not a requisite in order that obligation shall be extinguished by the destruction of a
thing
due?
a. When the thing is lost before the debtor incurred delay.
b.When the obligation is to deliver a brand new Hyundai Getz.
c. When the thing is lost without the fault of the debtor.
d. When the obligation is to deliver the Bonnevie Bldg, at 32 Ortega St., San Roque, Iriga City.

The correct answer is (b) "When the obligation is to deliver a brand new Hyundai Getz."

In the context of obligations, the destruction of the subject matter (the thing due) can
lead to the extinguishment of the obligation. However, for this to happen, certain
conditions or requisites must be met. One of these requisites is that the obligation must
pertain to a specific, determinate thing.

Let's break down the options:

● Option (a): When the thing is lost before the debtor incurred delay - This is a valid
requisite. If the thing is lost before the debtor is in default (before incurring
delay), the obligation may be extinguished.
 ● Option (b): When the obligation is to deliver a brand new Hyundai Getz - This is
not a valid requisite. The specificity of the brand or model of the car does not
affect the general principle that obligations to deliver determinate things may be
extinguished by the destruction of the thing.
● Option (c): When the thing is lost without the fault of the debtor - This is a valid
requisite. If the loss of the thing occurs without the fault of the debtor, it may lead
to the extinguishment of the obligation.
● Option (d): When the obligation is to deliver the Bonnevie Bldg, at 32 Ortega St.,
San Roque, Iriga City - This is a valid requisite. If the obligation is to deliver a
specific and determinate thing (the Bonnevie Bldg at a specific address) and it is
destroyed without the fault of the debtor, the obligation may be extinguished.

The legal basis for the extinguishment of obligations due to the loss or destruction of
the thing can be found in Article 1262 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. This article
states that:

"An obligation which consists in the delivery of a determinate thing shall be extinguished
if it should be lost or destroyed without the fault of the debtor, and before he has
incurred in delay."

9.The delay on the part of the creditor to accept the performance of an obligation:
a.Dolo incidente
b.Mora accipiende
c. Compensatio morae
d. Mora solvenci

The delay on the part of the creditor to accept the performance of an obligation is
referred to as "Mora Accipiendi."

● Mora Accipiendi: This Latin term translates to the delay in accepting. It occurs
when the debtor is ready and willing to fulfill their obligation, but the creditor
unreasonably delays or refuses to accept the performance. Mora accipiendi is a
delay on the part of the creditor in accepting the offered performance.

The correct answer to the question is (b) "Mora accipiendi."

The legal basis for mora accipiendi can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines,
particularly in Article 1169, which states:
"Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee
judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation.
However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay may
exist:
xxx
(2) When the obligor binds himself to pay when his means permit him to do so, and, in
contracts of reciprocal obligation, the other party does not perform or is not ready to
perform in a proper manner his own obligation."

Article 1169 establishes the general principle of delay, and mora accipiendi is a specific
form of delay related to the creditor's acceptance of the performance offered by the
debtor.

10. "Dayanan binds himself to sell to Gagatiun his car tor P250,000.* Which of the following
statements is false?
a. If no period has been agreed upon, the performance of the respective obligation is deemed to
be simultaneous.
b. If Dayanan delivers the car, Gagatlad will only be in delay trom the time demand has
been made by Dayanan.
c.Dayanan cannot demand payment if he does not deliver the car.
d. Gagatlun cannot demand delivery if he does not pay the price.

The false statement is (b) "If Dayanan delivers the car, Gagatlad will only be in delay
from the time demand has been made by Dayanan."

The correct statement should be that if no period has been agreed upon, the
performance of the respective obligation is deemed to be simultaneous. This means
that both parties are expected to fulfill their obligations at the same time.

Explanation:

● Option (a): If no period has been agreed upon, the performance of the respective
obligation is deemed to be simultaneous. This is a true statement and is in line
with the general principle that, in the absence of an agreed-upon period,
obligations are expected to be performed simultaneously.
● Option (b): If Dayanan delivers the car, Gagatlad will only be in delay from the
time demand has been made by Dayanan. This statement is false. In
simultaneous obligations, neither party is in delay until a demand has been made.
If Dayanan delivers the car without making a demand, Gagatiun is not
automatically in delay.
 ● Option (c): Dayanan cannot demand payment if he does not deliver the car. This
is a true statement. In a contract of sale, the usual arrangement is that the buyer
pays upon delivery, and the seller delivers upon payment.
● Option (d): Gagatiun cannot demand delivery if he does not pay the price. This is
a true statement. In a typical sale transaction, the seller has the right to demand
payment before delivering the goods.

The legal basis for these principles can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Article 1169 and related articles govern the rules on delay in reciprocal obligations.

11. Demand is not needed to put debtor in default except:

a. When the law so provides.
b. When demand would be useless as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to
perform.
c. When the thing is lost due to fortuitous event.
d. When time is of the essence of the contract.
The correct answer is (c) "When the thing is lost due to a fortuitous event."

Explanation:

● Option (a): When the law so provides - This is generally correct. Some laws or
contracts may specifically require a formal demand to put the debtor in default.
● Option (b): When demand would be useless as when the obligor has rendered it
beyond his power to perform - This is a valid exception. If the obligor has made it
impossible to perform the obligation, demand may not be necessary to put them
in default.
● Option (c): When the thing is lost due to a fortuitous event - This is the correct
answer. In cases where the thing that is the subject of the obligation is lost due
to a fortuitous event (an unforeseeable and uncontrollable occurrence, often
referred to as an act of God), demand is not needed to put the debtor in default.
The loss of the thing itself already prevents performance.
● Option (d): When time is of the essence of the contract - This is another valid
exception. In contracts where time is explicitly stated to be of the essence, failure
to perform within the specified time automatically puts the debtor in default.

The legal basis for these principles can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Article 1169 and related articles govern the rules on delay in reciprocal obligations,
including the exceptions mentioned above.

12. Who is liable for the loss of the subject matter by fortuitous event?
a. Creditor
b.Debtor
c. Both creditor and debtor
d. None of them
The correct answer is (d) "None of them."

Explanation:

In cases where the loss of the subject matter occurs due to a fortuitous event (an
unforeseeable and uncontrollable event, often referred to as an act of God), neither the
creditor nor the debtor is automatically held liable for the loss. This principle is based
on the concept of fortuitous events, which are events that are beyond the control of
the parties and are considered unforeseeable.

The relevant legal provision is found in the Civil Code of the Philippines. Article 1174
states:

"Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by

stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable."

This article emphasizes that unless the law expressly specifies otherwise or the
parties have agreed otherwise, and unless the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for events that could not be
foreseen or, even if foreseen, were inevitable. Fortuitous events generally exempt
parties from liability for the loss or non-performance caused by such events.

13. Antigua obliged himself to deliver a specific cow to Braganza which will be butchered and
served
to the latter's quests on the occasion of his wedding on June 20. On June 20 Antigua did not
deliver the cow. The following day, it was killed due to a flood that occurred in their place.
a.Antigua is liable for the loss of the cow because he was in delay.
b. Antigua's obligation has been extinguished.
c.Antigua is obliged to replace the cow.
d. Antigua is not liable because the cause of the loss is a fortuitous event.

The correct answer is (a) "Antigua is liable for the loss of the cow because he was in
delay."
Explanation:

Antigua had a specific obligation to deliver a particular cow to Braganza for a specific
purpose (to be butchered and served at Braganza's wedding on June 20). Antigua did
not fulfill this obligation on the agreed-upon date. As a result, he was already in delay or
default.

In cases of delay or default, the debtor (Antigua) becomes liable for any loss or
deterioration of the thing due, even if it occurs due to a fortuitous event. The rationale is
that the debtor is responsible for the consequences of the delay in performance.

The legal basis for this principle can be found in Article 1165 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, which states:

"When what is to be delivered is a determinate thing, the creditor, in addition to the right
granted him by Article 1170, may compel the debtor to make the delivery. If the thing is
indeterminate or generic, he may ask that the obligation be complied with at the
expense of the debtor."

Article 1170, mentioned in Article 1165, provides that 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. In this case, Antigua's failure to
deliver the cow on the agreed-upon date constitutes delay, and he is liable for the loss of
the cow even if it occurred due to a fortuitous event.

14. Statement 1: The receipt of the principal obligation without reservation as to the payment of
interest shall give rise to the presumption that the interest has been paid.
Statement 2: The receipt of the latter installment of a debt without reservation as to prior
installment, shall not raise a conclusive presumption that the prior installment is also paid.
a. Both are true
b.Both are false
c. C. No. 1 is false, No. 2 is true
d. No. 1 is true, No. 2 is false
The correct answer is (c) "No. 1 is false, No. 2 is true."

Explanation:

● Statement 1: "The receipt of the principal obligation without reservation as to the

payment of interest shall give rise to the presumption that the interest has been
paid." This statement is false. The receipt of the principal alone does not
automatically presume that the interest has been paid. The payment of interest is
 generally considered a separate obligation, and the mere receipt of the principal
does not extinguish the interest unless there is a clear agreement or stipulation
to that effect.
● Statement 2: "The receipt of the latter installment of a debt without reservation
as to the prior installment shall not raise a conclusive presumption that the prior
installment is also paid." This statement is true. The receipt of a later installment
without any reservation does not conclusively presume that the prior installment
has been paid. Each installment is generally considered a separate and
independent obligation, and the payment of one installment does not
automatically discharge the debtor's liability for previous installments unless
there is a clear agreement to the contrary.

The legal basis for these principles can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Articles 1176 and 1177 address the payment of interest, and Article 1253 deals with
partial payments. These articles emphasize the need for clear agreements or
stipulations regarding the payment of interest and the independent nature of installment
payments.

15. Which of the following is not an exception to the rule that "all rights acquired in virtue of an
obligation are transmissible"?
a.When the parties agreed against its transmission.
b. When the law prohibits the transmission of rights.
c.When the nature of the obligation is purely personal.
d.When the obligation is real.
The correct answer is (d) "When the obligation is real."

Explanation:

The general rule is that all rights acquired in virtue of an obligation are transmissible,
meaning they can be passed on to heirs or assigned to others. However, there are
exceptions to this rule. Let's analyze the options:

● Option (a): When the parties agreed against its transmission - This is a valid
exception. If the parties explicitly agree that the rights arising from the obligation
are not transferrable, then transmission may be restricted.
● Option (b): When the law prohibits the transmission of rights - This is a valid
exception. Certain laws may prohibit the transmission of specific rights.
● Option (c): When the nature of the obligation is purely personal - This is a valid
exception. If the nature of the obligation is such that it is tied to the person of the
 obligee, and performance depends on their personal qualities, the rights may not
be transmissible.
● Option (d): When the obligation is real - This is not a valid exception. An
obligation being real does not automatically make the rights arising from it
non-transmissible. In fact, real obligations are generally attached to a specific
thing and are often transmissible.

The legal basis for these principles can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Article 1311 specifically addresses the transmissibility of rights acquired in virtue of an
obligation, stating the general rule and recognizing exceptions based on agreement, law,
and the nature of the obligation.

16, Demandable at once -

a Conditional obligation
b. Pure obligation
c. Obligation with a period
d. Alternative obligation
The correct answer is (b) "Pure obligation."

Explanation:

A "demandable at once" obligation refers to a pure obligation. In a pure obligation, the

performance or fulfillment of the obligation can be demanded immediately, without the
need for a future event or condition to occur.

● Conditional obligation (Option a): A conditional obligation is one where the

fulfillment of the obligation depends on the occurrence or non-occurrence of a
future event. Therefore, it is not demandable at once but rather upon the
happening of the specified condition.
● Pure obligation (Option b): A pure obligation is one where the performance is
immediately demandable. There are no conditions, terms, or future events that
need to occur before the obligation can be enforced.
● Obligation with a period (Option c): An obligation with a period has a specified
timeframe or period within which the performance is to be fulfilled. The
demandability of the obligation is deferred until the expiration of the agreed-upon
period.
● Alternative obligation (Option d): An alternative obligation involves several
prestations, and the choice of which prestation to perform is given to the debtor.
While the creditor can choose one of the alternatives, the obligation is not
necessarily demandable at once.
The legal basis for these distinctions can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Article 1179 states that every obligation whose performance does not depend on a
future or uncertain event, or on a past event unknown to the parties, is demandable at
once. This provision underscores the concept of a pure obligation being immediately
demandable.

17. Statement 1: When the futfillment of the suspensive or resolutory condition depends upon
the
sole will of the debtor, the conditional obligation shall be vold.
Statement 2: If the original obligation is subject to a suspensive or resolutory condition and the
contract is novated the new obligation shall be under the same conditions unless otherwise
stipulated.
a. Both are true
b. Both are fals
c. No. 1 is true, No. 2 is false
d. No. 1 is false, No. 2 is true

The correct answer is (d) "No. 1 is false, No. 2 is true."

Explanation:

● Statement 1: "When the fulfillment of the suspensive or resolutory condition

depends upon the sole will of the debtor, the conditional obligation shall be void."
This statement is false. If the fulfillment of the condition depends solely on the
will of the debtor, it does not necessarily render the conditional obligation void.
Such a condition is known as a potestative condition, and it is generally valid
unless it goes against the nature of the obligation or is contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order, or public policy.
● Statement 2: "If the original obligation is subject to a suspensive or resolutory
condition and the contract is novated, the new obligation shall be under the same
conditions unless otherwise stipulated." This statement is true. Novation involves
the substitution of a new obligation for an existing one. If the original obligation
was subject to a suspensive or resolutory condition, the new obligation under
novation will generally be subject to the same conditions unless there is a clear
stipulation to the contrary.

The legal basis for these principles can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Article 1181 addresses potestative conditions, and Article 1292 deals with novation and
its effects on obligations and conditions.

18. *I will give you this car provided that If I like to have it back, you will return the same to me.
a. The obligation is valid, because the condition merely causes the loss of rights already
required.
b. Combination of C and D.
c.The obligation is void, because the fulfillment depends upon the will of the debtor.
d. The obligation is void, because the fulfillment depends upon the will of the creditor.

The statement describes a condition that allows the creditor to demand the return of the
car if they decide they want it back. In legal terms, this is known as a resolutory
condition.

● Option (a): "The obligation is valid because the condition merely causes the loss
of rights already acquired." This is the correct explanation. A resolutory condition,
where the fulfillment of the condition causes the loss of rights already acquired,
is generally valid. In this case, the creditor's right to the car is acquired, and the
condition allows the return of the car if the specified event (the creditor's desire
to have it back) occurs.
● Option (b): "Combination of C and D." This option is not applicable as the correct
explanation falls under Option (a).
● Option (c): "The obligation is void because the fulfillment depends upon the will
of the debtor." This is not the case in the given scenario. The fulfillment depends
on the condition, which is the will of the creditor, not the debtor.
● Option (d): "The obligation is void because the fulfillment depends upon the will
of the creditor." This is not correct. The condition depends on the will of the
creditor, and such conditions are generally valid unless they are against the law,
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

The legal basis for these principles can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Article 1181 deals with suspensive conditions, and Article 1191 discusses resolutory
conditions.

19. Which of the following is an obligation with a period for the benefit of the debtor?
a. An obligation payable little by little.
b. An obligation payable when the debtor's means permit him to do so.
c.An obligation payable within 2 years on demand.
d. An obligation "payable soonest'
e. An obligation payable on or before December 25, 2015,

An obligation with a period for the benefit of the debtor refers to a situation where the
performance or payment of the obligation is subject to a specific time or period, and
this period is designed to favor or benefit the debtor.
 ● Option (a): "An obligation payable little by little." This describes an installment
payment arrangement but does not necessarily specify a particular period. It may
not be considered an obligation with a period.
● Option (b): "An obligation payable when the debtor's means permit him to do so."
This may be considered a period, but it depends on the specific terms. If the
means of the debtor determine the payment period, it could be for the benefit of
the debtor.
● Option (c): "An obligation payable within 2 years on demand." This is not an
obligation with a period for the benefit of the debtor because the payment is on
demand, not within a specified period.
● Option (d): "An obligation 'payable soonest.'" This phrase is vague and does not
clearly indicate a specific period. It does not necessarily describe an obligation
with a period.
● Option (e): "An obligation payable on or before December 25, 2015." This is an
example of an obligation with a period. The payment is due on or before a
specified date, and this specific period benefits the debtor by providing clarity
and allowing planning for the payment.

The legal basis for these principles can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Articles 1169 and 1170, among others, discuss the rules regarding obligations with a
period and the effects of delay in performance.

20. The debtor loses the benefit of the period, and his obligation becomes demandable when
a.Demand by the creditor wouldhse useless.
b.The guarantees as promised and delivered by the debtor are not acceptable to the creditor.
c.After contracting the obligation, the creditor suspects that the debtor is becoming insolvent.
d.The debtor attempts to abscond.
The correct answer is (d) "The debtor attempts to abscond."

Explanation:

The phrase "attempts to abscond" implies that the debtor is trying to escape or flee, and
this behavior triggers the loss of the benefit of the period in obligations.

In the context of obligations with a period, the benefit of the period is a grace period
given to the debtor for the fulfillment of the obligation. However, certain actions or
circumstances can result in the immediate demandability of the obligation. Attempting
to abscond or escape is one such circumstance.
The legal basis for this principle can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines. Article
1198 states:

"The debtor shall lose every right to make use of the period:
xxx
(4) If he attempts to abscond."

This provision specifies that attempting to abscond is a situation where the debtor loses
the benefit of the period, and the obligation becomes immediately demandable.

21. Facultative as distinquished from alternative obligation

a. The right of choice is given only to the debtor.
b. Various things are due, but the giving of one is sufficient.
c.If one of the prestations is illegal, the others may be valid and the obligation remains.
d. If it is impossible to give all except one, that last one must still be given.
The correct answer is (a) "The right of choice is given only to the debtor."

Explanation:

● Facultative Obligation (Option a): In a facultative obligation, the right of choice is

given only to the debtor. The debtor has the privilege or option to substitute the
original prestation with another that is not in the obligation but is acceptable to
the creditor.
● Alternative Obligation (Option b): In an alternative obligation, various things are
due, but the giving of one is sufficient. The debtor has the choice to deliver one of
the several prestations, and the creditor is bound to accept whichever is given.
● Comparison with Illegal Prestations (Option c): For facultative obligations, if one
of the prestations is illegal, the others may be valid, and the obligation remains.
In alternative obligations, the invalidity of one prestation may affect the entire
obligation, depending on the nature of the alternatives.
● Impossibility to Give All (Option d): In facultative obligations, if it is impossible to
give all except one, that last one must still be given. In alternative obligations, if it
is impossible to give any of the alternatives, the debtor may be released from the
obligation.

The legal basis for these distinctions can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Articles 1197 and 1198 deal with facultative and alternative obligations, respectively.

22. Effect of the loss of thing in a facultative obligation. Which is incorrect?

a. Before substitution, if the principal thing is lost due to fortuitous event, there is no more
obligation.
b. Before substitution, if the substitute thing is lost due to debtor's fault, there is no more
obligation.
c. After substitution, if the principal thing is lost, the debtor is no longer liable If it was lost due to
his fault.
d. None of the above.

Explanation:

In a facultative obligation, the debtor has the privilege or option to substitute the original
prestation with another that is not in the obligation but is acceptable to the creditor. The
effect of the loss of the thing in a facultative obligation is governed by the rules set out
in the Civil Code of the Philippines.

● Option (a): "Before substitution, if the principal thing is lost due to a fortuitous
event, there is no more obligation." This statement is correct. If the loss of the
principal thing occurs before the debtor makes the substitution and is due to a
fortuitous event, the obligation is extinguished.
● Option (b): "Before substitution, if the substitute thing is lost due to the debtor's
fault, there is no more obligation." This statement is incorrect. The loss of the
substitute thing due to the debtor's fault does not automatically extinguish the
obligation. The debtor remains liable for the original prestation or the loss of the
substitute thing if it is his fault.
● Option (c): "After substitution, if the principal thing is lost, the debtor is no longer
liable if it was lost due to his fault." This statement is correct. After the
substitution, if the principal thing is lost and it is due to the debtor's fault, the
debtor is no longer liable for the obligation.

The legal basis for these principles can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines,
particularly in Articles 1197 and 1198, which govern facultative obligations and their
effects.

23. Sinte ent biothieones mar tie doNigationis: Solary-ons of ot mo or (rare debians in one and
ine
same obligation implies that the obligation is solidary.
Statement 2: When the obligation is joint, the debt shall be divided into as many shares as there
are creditors or debtors.
a. Only the first statement is true.
b. Only the second statement is true,
C.Both statements are true.
d. Neither statement is true.
Explanation:

● Statement 1: "Solidary-ness of one or rare debians in one and the same

obligation implies that the obligation is solidary." This statement is incorrect. The
phrasing appears to have some errors, but it seems to suggest that if one or
more debtors in an obligation are solidary, then the entire obligation is solidary.
This is not accurate. In a solidary obligation, each debtor is individually
responsible for the entire obligation, and the performance by one releases the
others. However, having one or more solidary debtors does not automatically
make the entire obligation solidary.
● Statement 2: "When the obligation is joint, the debt shall be divided into as many
shares as there are creditors or debtors." This statement is true. In a joint
obligation, the debt is divided among the debtors, and the creditors have separate
and distinct rights to their respective shares. Likewise, each debtor is responsible
only for their share of the debt.

The legal basis for joint and solidary obligations can be found in the Civil Code of the
Philippines. Article 1207 discusses joint and solidary obligations, and Article 1208
provides that the creditors may demand only their respective shares in the obligation in
joint obligations.

24. A, B, and C secured a loan from D. The promissory note which evidenced the obligation
states: "I
promise to pay D or order P10,000 payable on demand* (Sgd.) A B C. The obligation is:
a.Solidary
b. Divisible
C.Indivisible
d.Joint

● Solidary Obligation (Option a): A solidary obligation exists when each debtor is
individually responsible for the entire obligation, and each creditor is entitled to
demand the fulfillment of the entire obligation from any or all of the debtors. In
this case, the promissory note is signed by A, B, and C, collectively promising to
pay D or order P10,000 payable on demand. The use of the conjunction "and"
typically indicates solidarity, making each of them individually responsible for the
entire debt.
● Divisible Obligation (Option b): A divisible obligation is one that can be divided
into distinct parts, each corresponding to a proportionate share of the debt. In
 this case, the obligation is not divisible since the entire amount is payable on
demand.
● Indivisible Obligation (Option c): An indivisible obligation is one that cannot be
validly performed in parts. The fact that the promissory note specifies a fixed
amount payable on demand suggests indivisibility.
● Joint Obligation (Option d): A joint obligation involves multiple debtors, and each
debtor is responsible only for their share of the obligation. In this case, the
obligation is not joint, as each debtor (A, B, and C) is individually responsible for
the entire P10,000.

The legal basis for these distinctions can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Articles 1207 and 1211 discuss joint and solidary obligations, and the wording of the
obligation itself is crucial in determining its nature.

25. Indivisibility distinguished from solidarity

a Refers to legal tie or vinculum.
b.Refers to the prestation which constitutes the object of the obligation.
c. When the obligation is converted onto one of indemnity for damages because of breach, the
character of the obligation remains.
d. Plurality of the subject is indivisible.

Explanation:

● Indivisibility (Option b): Indivisibility refers to the nature of the prestation (act,
payment, service, etc.) that constitutes the object of the obligation. An indivisible
obligation is one that cannot be validly performed in parts. The entirety of the
prestation must be fulfilled at once.
● Solidarity (Option a): Solidarity, on the other hand, refers to the legal relationship
or vinculum among the parties. In a solidary obligation, each debtor is individually
responsible for the entire obligation, and each creditor can demand the fulfillment
of the entire obligation from any or all of the debtors.
● Effect of Conversion (Option c): The conversion of the obligation into one of
indemnity for damages because of a breach does not change the character of
the obligation. Whether an obligation is solidary or indivisible may still be relevant
in the context of indemnification for damages.
● Plurality of the Subject (Option d): Plurality of the subject refers to the number of
debtors or creditors involved. In solidary obligations, there is a plurality of
debtors, while in indivisible obligations, there is a plurality of subjects (parts)
making up the whole prestation.
The legal basis for these distinctions can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Articles 1210 and 1211 address indivisibility, while Articles 1207 and 1208 discuss
solidarity.

26. Didith, Diana, and Dura executed a promissory note worded as follows: "We promise to pay
to
Carlito, Colinares, and Colico the sum of P180,000.* (Sgd.) Didith, Diana, and Dura.
a. Didith is obliged to pay Carlito, Colinares, and Colico P180,000.
b. Didith is obliged to pay Carlito P80,000.
c.Didith is obliged to pay Carlito P20,000.
d. Didith is obliged to pay Carlito P60,000.

The phrasing of the promissory note indicates that Didith, Diana, and Dura jointly and
solidarily promised to pay the sum of P180,000 to Carlito, Colinares, and Colico. In such
a situation, each of the debtors is individually responsible for the entire obligation, and
each creditor has the right to demand the entire amount from any one of the debtors.

Since Didith is one of the debtors and she is obliged to pay the entire amount, the
amount she is individually obligated to pay is one-third of the total, considering there are
three debtors. Therefore, Didith is obliged to pay Carlito P20,000 (P180,000 ÷ 3 =
P60,000).

The legal basis for this principle can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Articles 1207 and 1211 discuss joint and solidary obligations, and they provide the
basis for understanding the individual liability of each debtor in such cases.

27. A, B, and C solidarily bound themselves to deliver to X a Honda Motorcycle. The obligation
was
not fulfilled through the fault of A, thereupon, X filed an action in court against C and the court
awarded P36,000 to X. Which of the following situations is correct.
a. If C pays X the P36,000. C can collect from A P24,000 and B P12.000. Later, B can ask
for reimbursement from A P12.000.
b.X has to collect P12,000 each from A, B, and C to satisfy the court's award of P36,000.
c.If C pays X the P36,000, C can collect from B P10,000 and from A P16,000.
d. X cannot collect the whole amount of P36,000 from C

In a solidary obligation, each debtor is individually responsible for the entire obligation,
and each creditor has the right to demand the fulfillment of the entire obligation from
any or all of the debtors. If one of the solidary debtors pays more than their share, they
have the right to seek reimbursement from the other debtors.
Therefore, in this case:

● If C pays X the full P36,000, C can collect from A P24,000 (2/3 of the amount, as
there are three debtors) and from B P12,000 (1/3 of the amount). This satisfies
the court's award of P36,000.
● Later, B, having paid P12,000, can ask for reimbursement from A for half of that
amount, i.e., P12,000.

This scenario is in accordance with the principles of solidary obligations as outlined in

the Civil Code of the Philippines. Articles 1207 and 1211 discuss joint and solidary
obligations, providing the legal basis for the individual liability of each debtor and the
right to seek reimbursement

28. D1, D2, and D3 are solidary debtors of C for P30,000. The obligation was in writing. After
the
lapse of the ten-year prescriptive period, which of the following statements is incorrect?
a. If D1 paid C not knowing that the obligation has already prescribed, his right is to
proceed against C because there was undue payment.
b. If D1 paid C knowing that the obligation has already prescribed, D1 cannot ask
reimbursement from D2 and D3.
c. If D1 paid C not knowing that the obilgation has already prescribed, D1 cannot ask
reimbursement from D2 and D3.
d. None of the above

Explanation:

In a solidary obligation, each debtor is individually responsible for the entire obligation,
and each creditor has the right to demand the fulfillment of the entire obligation from
any or all of the debtors. However, the prescriptive period for filing a legal action to
enforce a written contract is ten years.

In the given scenario:

● Option (a): If D1 paid C not knowing that the obligation has already prescribed,
his right is generally not to proceed against C because the prescriptive period has
lapsed. Once the prescriptive period expires, the creditor cannot enforce the
obligation through legal action. Therefore, D1's payment, made after the
prescriptive period, is considered undue, and he cannot proceed against C.
● Option (b): If D1 paid C knowing that the obligation has already prescribed, D1
cannot ask reimbursement from D2 and D3. This is correct. The payment made
 after the prescriptive period is not a valid legal obligation, and D1 cannot seek
reimbursement.
● Option (c): If D1 paid C not knowing that the obligation has already prescribed, D1
cannot ask reimbursement from D2 and D3. This is correct. The lapse of the
prescriptive period affects the enforceability of the obligation, and D1 cannot
seek reimbursement from co-debtors.

The legal basis for these principles can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Article 1154 deals with the prescription of actions, and Article 1216 discusses the
effects of payments made by one debtor in a solidary obligation.

29. Atenza and Bandana are jointly and severally Ilable to Cantada for P50,000. Atlenza is a
minor.
a.Cantada can collect P25,000 from Bandana.
b. Cantada can collect P25,000 from Atlenza, that is the share of Bandana.
c. Cantada can collect P50,000 from Bandana.
d. Cantada can collect P50,000 because minority is not a defense.

In a joint and several obligation, each debtor is individually responsible for the entire
obligation, and the creditor has the right to demand the fulfillment of the entire
obligation from any or all of the debtors.

In the given scenario:

● Option (a): "Cantada can collect P25,000 from Bandana." This is correct. Cantada
can collect the entire P50,000 from either Atenza or Bandana or divide it between
them. Since Atenza is a minor, he has limited contractual capacity, and Bandana
can be held responsible for the entire amount. Cantada can collect P25,000 from
Bandana, which represents Bandana's share.
● Option (b): "Cantada can collect P25,000 from Atenza, that is the share of
Bandana." This is not accurate. Atenza being a minor has limited contractual
capacity, and the creditor cannot enforce the obligation against the minor debtor.
● Option (c): "Cantada can collect P50,000 from Bandana." This is possible, but it's
not the only correct answer. Cantada has the option to collect the entire amount
from Bandana if deemed necessary.
● Option (d): "Cantada can collect P50,000 because minority is not a defense." This
is not accurate. Minority is indeed a defense in contractual obligations, and a
minor's contractual capacity is limited.
The legal basis for these principles can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Article 1217 discusses joint and several obligations, allowing the creditor flexibility in
collecting from any or all of the debtors. The contractual capacity of a minor is
addressed in Article 1327.

30. In obligations with a penal clause, the creditor as a rule may recover from the debtor in case
of
non-compliance the following:
a. The principal, the penalty as agreed upon, plus damages and interest.
b.The principal, the penalty plus interest.
c.The principal and the penalty.
d. The principal, the penalty, and damages.

In obligations with a penal clause, the penalty serves as a predetermined compensation

or punishment for the debtor's non-compliance with the principal obligation. The
purpose of the penalty is to provide an additional remedy for the creditor in case of
breach.

● Option (a): "The principal, the penalty as agreed upon, plus damages and
interest." This may be applicable if the terms of the agreement specify that the
creditor can recover both the principal, the agreed-upon penalty, damages, and
interest.
● Option (b): "The principal, the penalty plus interest." This may be applicable if the
terms of the agreement allow the recovery of the principal, the penalty, and
interest.
● Option (c): "The principal and the penalty." This is generally correct. The creditor
is entitled to recover the principal and the stipulated penalty for non-compliance.
● Option (d): "The principal, the penalty, and damages." This may be applicable if
the terms of the agreement explicitly state that damages are recoverable in
addition to the principal and the penalty.

The legal basis for these principles can be found in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Article 1226 discusses the effects of the penal clause in obligations, allowing the
creditor to demand the fulfillment of the principal obligation and the satisfaction of the
penalty. The exact terms may vary based on the agreement between the parties.