PRACTICE PROBLEMS: Arts.

1193-1198

CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2
OBLIGATIONS WITH A PERIOD
(Arts. 1193-1198)

APPLICATION/PROBLEMS :

1. On January 15, 2017, Myla promised to give Darius P100,000.00

if his Dad will die on or before December 15, 2017. Is this a conditional
obligation or an obligation with a period?  Art. 1193

2. On January 1, 2015, Dulce borrowed P200,000.00 from Kirby

payable on January 1, 2017, with 20% interest annually. On January 1,
2016, thinking that the obligation was already due, Dulce paid Kirby
P200,000.00 plus P80,000.00 interest. On January 3, 2016, Dulce
realized that her debt was not yet due until a year after. Hence, Dulce
went to Kirby to recover her payment. May Dulce recover from Kirby
under the circumstances? If so, how much?  Art. 1195.

3. On January 1, 2016, Dax borrowed P150,000.00 from Cris. As

security for the payment of his debt, Dax pledged with Cris a Rolex Date
Just watch worth P225,000.00 which he bought from Hong Kong. It was
agreed by the parties that Dax was to pay back the money loaned, with
10% interest per annum, on December 31, 2016. On September 2, 2016,
Dax went to Cris offering payment of the loan, plus interest corresponding
to 8 months, and at the same time redemption of the Rolex watch
pledged. Cris, however, refused to accept his payment as well as the
return to Dax of his Rolex watch. Was Cris legally justified in refusing the
payment of Dax?  Art. 1196

4. On January 1, 2016, Delson borrowed P1M from Corina. Delson

promised to pay back the amount to Corina on December 31, 2017 at
PRACTICE PROBLEMS: Arts. 1193-1198

10% interest per annum. On December 31, 2016, Delson offered to pay
the amount of P1.1M to Corina, which covered the principal amount of the
loan plus 10% interest on the loan for one year. Corina willingly accepted
the payment without reservation. On February 1, 2017, however, Corina
asked his lawyer to send a demand letter to Delson claiming payment of
the balance of P100,000.00 pertaining to the interest on his principal loan
and corresponding to the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31,
2017. Corina maintains that since the period for the payment of the loan
was established for the benefit of both the debtor and the creditor, the
debtor had no right to make premature payments. Corina also avers that
if Delson insists on paying prematurely, he can only be allowed to do so
after paying the interest computed up to the period agreed upon by the
parties, i.e. P200,000.00. Is Corina’s argument legally tenable?
 Art. 1196

5. On January 15, 2017, Benny signed a promissory note in favor of

Kim with the following tenor: “I promise to pay Kim the amount of
P250,000.00 on or before January 15, 2018.” As security for the
obligation, Benny delivered to Kim the diamond bracelet of his wife worth
P350,000.00, and the parties also signed a contract of Pledge to evidence
the agreement.  Art. 1196

(a) If Kim decides to collect on the obligation on August 30, 2017,

since she is in dire need of the money, can she legally compel Benny to
make the payment?
(b) Assume that Benny did not make payment on the obligation but
decides to tender payment of the P250,000.00, with legal rate of interest,
on January 30, 2027, to recover the diamond bracelet of his wife. Kim,
however, contends that the action (being based upon a written contract)
has already prescribed on account of the fact that ten (10) years had
already elapsed from the time the contract of pledge was executed
between the parties. Will Benny’s action to recover the bracelet from Kim
at such time still prosper?
PRACTICE PROBLEMS: Arts. 1193-1198

6. On January 5, 2017, Sarah borrowed P50,000.00 from Toby due

for payment “within two years on demand.” On August 30, 2017, since
Sarah already had the money, and wanting to free herself from her
indebtedness, she went to Toby tendering payment of the P50,000.00.
Toby, however, refused to accept payment. Under the facts, is Toby’s
refusal to accept payment legally justified?  Art. 1196

7. Where an obligation is subject to a suspensive condition which is

potestative on the part of the debtor, that conditional obligation is void.
(Article 1182) What if the obligation is subject to a suspensive period, the
arrival of which depends upon the sole will of the debtor, will the obligation
be likewise void? Give an example of the two kinds of obligations herein
referred to.  Art. 1197, par. 2

8. Arvin obliged himself to pay Wella his P100,000.00 loan “as soon
as possible”. Six months thereafter, Wella demanded payment from Arvin
but the latter refused to pay. What is the remedy of Wella under the
factual circumstances of this case? Can she outrightly file an action in
court for specific performance to compel Arvin to pay his obligation?
 Art. 1197, par. 2

9. On June 30, 2016, Malusog Medical Equipments, Inc. sold to Dr.

Katakutan a portable x-ray machine for P1.2M. MMEI agreed to accept
payment for the machine in four equal quarterly installments until June 30,
2017, but asked for a collateral. Dr. Katakutan then mortgaged to MMEI a
2015 MB 100 which was being used by his infirmary as ambulance. On
September 15, 2016, the MB 100, while parked outside the NAIA Terminal
3 awaiting the arrival of a patient, was carnapped and was no longer
recovered. After notice of the incident, MMEI, on September 20, 2016,
demanded for payment of the entire P1.2M from Dr. Katakutan. Dr.
Katakutan, however, refused to pay the total price for the machine. Dr.
Katakutan contends that he cannot be made liable for the whole obligation
because under the parties’ agreement, he was given until June 30, 2017
PRACTICE PROBLEMS: Arts. 1193-1198

within which to pay for the contract price in four equal quarterly
installments. Besides, Dr. Katakutan states, the collateral he furnished to
MMEI was lost not through his own fault but by virtue of a fortuitous event.
Is Dr. Katakutan’s argument legally justifiable?  Art. 1198, par. 3

10. On June 30, 2016, Feline borrowed P200,000.00 from Gardo due
for payment on June 30, 2018. Two months thereafter, Gardo found out
from her mother that Feline had changed residence, without informing
Gardo where she had relocated. Worst, Gardo could not contact her old
mobile number, and none of her friends knew of her whereabouts. On
August 5, 2017, Gardo received a tip from her sister that they saw Feline
working as a saleslady at SM, San Fernando, Pampanga. Gardo
immediately went to Pampanga and demanded from Feline payment of
the P200,000.00. Feline, however, refused to make payment alleging that
the collection was premature considering that the debt was not due for
payment until June 30, 2018. Is the argument of Feline tenable?
 Art. 1198, par. 5