1. What is the statute of frauds?

Give example each

2. What is the effect of Assignment of credit in legal compensation?

3. Employees in ABC company were under pension plan, before they can avail of it,
ABC Company renewed pension plan imposing additional requirements that can no
longer be complied with by the employees. Employees are now demanding that they
avail of previous pension plan because ABC made it impossible for them to comply with
the previous pension requirements. ABC contended that they have not even complied
with the requirements of the old pension plan. Decide

4. Selmo an illiterate was induced by Banjo into signing his thumbmark into a
document which he thought was a simple authorization when it was actually a deed of
sale which was registered by Banjo.
After 14 years, Banjo decided to eject Selmo using the registered DOS.
Banjo contends that since the consent of Selmo was vitiated, the action for annulment
has already prescribed since it was already 14 years since it was registered. As a
second defense he claims that Selmo is estopped by laches for sitting on his rights for
14 years.
a. The contract is not voidable but void. The fraud employed by Banjo to obtain the
thumbmark of Selmo rendered both consent and consideration inexistent resulting into
no contract at all. Since the contract is void, the action for its annulment is
imprescribtable and the defense of its void character cannot be waived. The contention
that laches has already set in is untenable. There was no conduct by the defendant
Selmo that would give rise for Banjo to enforce his right, precisely because he has no
right in the first place. Certainly, he cannot be made to benefit out of his own fraudulent
acts, one comes into equity with clean hands.
5. Spouses Simon and Carla owned a piece of land. Carla executed a deed of sale
in favor of Dolfo without the consent of Simon. Thereafter, Dolfo filed for the ejectment of
the spouses but the latter contended since it was not notarized that the deed of sale is
unenforceable for not complying with the statute of frauds.
Is the contention correct? What then is the remedy for Dolfo?
a. The family code provides that any alienation or encumbrance over real property
by a spouse without the written consent of the other would be void ab initio.
Furthermore, the Civil Code provides that in sale of real property through an agent, the
authority of said agent should be made in writing otherwise the sale would be void.
There being no written document from the other spouse, either as consent of the Carlo
or the authorization as an agent, the sale to Dolfo was void ab initio. Having said
document notarized would likewise be futile since a void document cannot be cured of
its void character not even by notarization or ratification. The only action left for Dolfo is
to have the document declared void and for him to recover what he has already paid
with damages.
6. Julia sold to Robert her H and L. After acquiring said house, Robert found out
that it was the site of a gruesome massacre over a year ago. He now wants to annul the
contract and recover the money he has paid for it on the ground of fraud since Julia did
not inform him of the said massacre, otherwise he wouldnt have bought the house. Will
the action prosper?
a. There is no ground for the annulment of the contract as all the essential elements
are present consent, object and cause. The object was the house, the cause was for
Julia the payment of money and for Robert the promise to deliver the title over the
house, the consent was freely given and was not vitiated by fraud, intimidation, violence,
undue influence or mistake. The fact that Robert was unaware of the massacre is not the
mistake contemplated by the civil code for the annulment of a contract. At most it was
merely incidental and in fact, Robert had the opportunity to survey the said property and
find out for himself the conditions thereof. Furthermore, Julia had no duty to disclose the
said massacre to Robert since they were not under any confidential relationship. Neither
was there anything illegal about the attending cause, not even of the motive that could
predetermine the cause for entering into the contract. The sale was valid.
7. Selmo sent a letter to Dante, offering to sell his H and L on Jan 1 2011. The letter
reached Dante on Jan 2 and he accepted thereto, sending his acceptance letter on the
same date. When the acceptance letter of Dante reached Selmos residence on January
3, the latter was in Cebu. While in Cebu, Selmo changed his mind and decided to
withdraw the offer by sending another letter to Dante on January 4. Dante however
refuses the withdrawal, saying that the contract was already perfected when his letter of
acceptance reached Selmos residence on January 3. Is his contention correct?
a. No, there was no meeting of the offer and the acceptance. Applying the cognition
theory which is adhered to in the Philippines, a contract is perfected when the
acceptance of the offer has come into the knowledge of the offeror. Since Selmo was in
Cebu when the letter arrived at his residence, the rule on constructive knowledge does
not apply since the letter was not in his possession and there was no way for him to
know of its contents. Because of this lack of knowledge, he was still perfectly allowed to
withdraw his offer and since a withdrawal is effective immediately and was done before
he gained knowledge of the acceptance, there was no meeting of the acceptance and
the offer therefore there was no perfected contract.
8. Antonia, a widow suffering from ovarian cancer, sold to Jobert (17 yrs) her house
and lot for 500k. Upon her death, her heirs instituted an action against Jobert, citing the
latters incapacity to contract due to minority when the sale was effected, Antonias
incapacity to give consent because of her ovarian cancer and that the sale suffered
lesion because the said property was actually worth 3 million pesos. Will the action
prosper?
a. The inadequacy of the consideration is a badge of fraud that may warrant
rescission. If it can be proven that the intent of Antonia is to defraud the heirs of their
legitime then an action for rescission may prosper
b. The heirs cannot cite Joberts incapacity to annul the contract, such an action
belongs solely to Jobert.
c. Ovarian cancer is not synonymous to incapacity. Presumption is that every
person is of sound mind to give consent, heirs must prove their mother did not
understand the nature of the contract when it was entered into for an action for
annulment to prosper.
9. Differentiate Right of First Refusal from Option to Buy/Sell.