Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
BAR FORMAT
QUESTION
S entered into a contract with ABC Bank wherein he will sell together
with his shares of stock, the shares of the rest of the minority stockholders
of X Company subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) that prior
to its implementation, the shares of stocks shall first be surrendered to the
ABC Bank; (2) that written conformity to the arrangement be given by the
shareholders; and (3) that the transaction shall be implemented within
forty-five (45) days from the date of approval otherwise, the same shall be
deemed canceled.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
In the case at bar, the contract entered into by the parties was
subject to certain terms and conditions. It was not absolutely and
unconditionally accepted by ABC Bank. Such as when S failed to meet the
imposed conditions, a meeting of the minds is not reached. Therefore, it
cannot be said that a perfected contract of sale between the parties
existed.
TOPIC: CONTRACT OF SALE
QUESTION
VECO Inc., on the other hand moved for the dismissal of the case
arguing that: (a) there is no perfected contract of sale but only a mere
contract to sale; and (b) that there exists no delivery that consummates
the contract.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
In the instant case, all the elements of a contract of sale are present.
The signed proposal is which contains the terms and conditions indicate
consent on the part of Cebu Hardware to transfer ownership thereby
complying the first requisite. The second and third element was also
complied with, the subject matter, which is a one (1) unit of 10 MVA Power
Transformer with corresponding KV Line accessories, is determinate and
purchase price agreed upon by the parties is a sum certain in money.
There was delivery that consummates the contract. Since the freight,
handling, insurance, custom duties, and incidental expenses are shouldered
by VECO, Inc., Article 1523 of the Civil Code which states that “Where, in
pursuance of a contract of sale, the seller is authorized or required to send
the goods to the buyer delivery of the goods to a carrier, whether named
by the buyer or not, for the purpose of transmission to the buyer is deemed
to be a delivery of the goods to the buyer, except in the cases provided for
in Article 1503, first, second and third paragraphs, or unless a contrary
intent appears.” applies in this case.
Since in this case, Cebu Hardware was authorized to send the power
transformer to the buyer pursuant to their agreement, it’s delivery as
evidenced by the Bill of Lading, was deemed to be a delivery to VECO, Inc.
There is therefore, a delivery which consummates the contract.
Double Sale
QUESTION
On May 19, 1998, P1 purchased a parcel of land from S. Later on,
when P1 was about to register the sale on October 18, 1999, the
registration was refused by the Register of Deeds because P1 failed to
produce the Original Certificate of Title.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Art. 1544 of the Civil Code states that 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, if it
should be movable property.
Admittedly, the two sales were not registered with the Registry of
Property. Since there was no inscription, the next question is who, between
P1 and P2, first took possession of the subject property in good faith. In this
case P2 immediately took possession of the parcel of land on January 1999
upon payment of the purchase price. Therefore, P2 has a better right to the
property
TOPIC: CONTRACT OF SALE
QUESTION
X agreed to sell a parcel of land to Y. X received P20,000 as earnest
money. Thereafter 2 checks were issued by Y but X refused to accept the
check saying that the heirs as co-owners did not want to sell the property.
Was there a perfected contract between the parties? What is the nature of
contract between them?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. There was a perfected contract between the parties since all the
essential requisites of a contract were present.
Article 1318 of the Civil Code declares that no contract exists unless
the following requisites concur: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2)
object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of
the obligation established.
That a thing is sold without the consent of all the co-owners does not
invalidate the sale or render it void. Article 493 of the Civil Code recognizes
the absolute right of a co-owner to freely dispose of his pro indiviso share
as well as the fruits and other benefits arising from that share,
independently of the other co-owners. Thus, when X agreed to sell to Y the
property , what she in fact sold was her undivided interest consisted of
one-half interest, representing her conjugal share, and one-sixth interest,
representing her hereditary share.
Significantly, the Court has consistently held that the Maceda Law
covers not only sales on installments of real estate, but also financing of
such acquisition; its Section 3 is comprehensive enough to include both
contracts of sale and contracts to sell, provided that the terms on payment
of the price require at least two installments. The contract entered into by
the parties herein can very well fall under the Maceda Law.
TOPIC: SALE
QUESTION
A entered into an agreement with B for the purchase and sale of two-
hectare parcel of land which was mortgaged in favor of XY Bank for a loan.
The said land was sold to B for P100, 000 per hectare totalling P200, 000. B
already paid P100,000 as payment to XY bank so that the certificate of title
can be released in favor of A and thereafter make another payment to C to
whom the land is also mortgaged. Moreover, the parties under their
contract of sale stipulated conditions that certificate of title be delivered to
B and thereafter execute a deed of sale so that he can use the title as
collateral for the application of loan as full payment for the balance of the
sale. However, B backed out from the sale due to the area which is not yet
fully cleared by encumbrances because C is not willing to vacate the land.
Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint in court for the rescission
of contract against A. Will the action prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
TOPIC: SALE
Right to Transfer Title, Right to Recover & Exception under Estoppel
QUESTION
A, a blind person, who has been in cement business for a decade
entered into a contract of sale with B who represented himself as radio
operator and confidential secretary of C, manager of ABC company. B
offered to sell to A a certain quantity of ABC’s cement. After
checking B’s identification card, A agreed to purchase ABC’s cement
without knowing that said cements were actually stolen since there was no
proper authority issued by ABC company to B for such sale. There were 5
deliveries made to A. However, upon demand of payment. A rejected the
same. Consequently, ABC company filed a complaint for sum of money and
damages against A. ABC company argued that A didn’t exercise the proper
diligence required of him when he transacted business with B. Rule on ABC
company’s contention.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
In the case at bar, A despite being blind, had been managing and
operating a cement business for 15 years and this was not a hindrance for
him to transact business until this time. In this instance, however, A failed
to exercise the standard of conduct expected of a reasonable person who is
blind. He merely relied on the identification card of B and didn’t investigate
whether the latter was authorized by ABC. A did not do any other
background check on the identity and authority of B which is an apparent
negligence on his part.
TOPIC: LEASE
QUESTION
XYZ Company entered into a contract with Inday for the lease of a
portion of lot. The lease contract was for a period of one (1) year, with a
monthly rental of P3,960.00. After the expiration of the lease contract on
December 31, 1997, the petitioner continued occupying the subject
premises without paying the rent. On August 5, 1998, XYZ Company sent a
letter to the petitioner demanding that she vacate the subject premises and
pay compensation for its use and occupancy. The petitioner, however,
refused to heed these demands. On November 18, 1998, XYZ Company
filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioner before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and prayed, among others, that the Inday
and those claiming rights under her be ordered to vacate the subject
premises, and to pay compensation for its use and occupancy.
SUGGESTED ANSWERS
1. Yes. Article 1670 provides that, If at the end of the contract the lessee
should continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the
acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary by either
party has previously been given, it is understood that there is an implied
new lease, not for the period of the original contract, but for the time
established in Articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of the original
contract shall be revived.
Since the rent was paid on a monthly basis, the period of lease is
considered to be from month to month, in accordance with Article 1687 of
the Civil Code. " Lease from month to month is considered to be one with a
definite period which expires at the end of each month upon a demand to
vacate by the lessor." When the respondent sent a notice to vacate to the
petitioner on August 5, 1998, the tacita reconduccion was aborted, and the
contract is deemed to have expired at the end of that month. " Notice to
vacate constitutes an express act on the part of the lessor that it no longer
consents to the continued occupation by the lessee of its property." After
such notice, the lessee’s right to continue in possession ceases and her
possession becomes one of detainer.
TOPIC: LEASE
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, the Candy and her co-heirs cannot be compelled. Under Article
1678, the lessor has the option of paying one-half of the value of the
improvements that the lessee made in good faith, which are suitable to the
use for which the lease is intended, and which have not altered the form
and substance of the land. On the other hand, the lessee may remove the
improvements should the lessor refuse to reimburse.
TOPIC: LEASE
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, Y is already stopped for seeking recovery of the amount claimed
for failing to make any protest or objection upon tender of payment by X.
No bill was made and forwarded to respondent on the basis of which it
could have given or withheld its conformity to the provision of the contract
of lease.
TOPIC: LEASE
QUESTION
X mortgaged a parcel of land to Bank A. X leased said property Y, the
contract of lease not registered with the Registry of Properties.
Subsequently, X failed to settle their obligation which caused its foreclosure
and thereby transferred ownership to Bank A. A letter was sent to Y by
Bank A notifying its ownership thereby directing Y to come to the bank
within 30 days to execute a lease contract but was not acted upon.
Thereafter, Bank A offered the sale of said land which Y offered to purchase
but was nonetheless rejected due to insufficiency. W offered to purchase
said land which was acknowledged and accepted by Bank A thereby issued
a Deed of Sale upon full payment. Is the sale of said land to W valid
considering the right of first refusal contended by Y?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes, the sale of said land to W was valid. Y does not have the right of
first refusal for there was no contract of lease between Y and Bank A. The
offer of Bank A to execute of a new lease contract was not acted by Y and
that there can be no implied contract because the previous lease between
X and Y was not registered with the Registry of Properties. As a rule, a
buyer in a foreclosure sale may terminate an unregistered lease except
when it knows of the existence of the lease.
TOPIC: PARTNERSHIP
Existence of Partnership
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
TOPIC: PARTNERSHIP
Joint Venture, Assignment of Share, Dissolution
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
TOPIC: AGENCY
Doctrine of Apparent Authority, Agency by Estoppel
QUESTION
Z bank answered that the agreement shall not bind the corporation
(Z bank) since the manager lacks the authority to do so. Hence, such
agreement is invalid and shall not release the mortgagors over their
mortgaged property.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
TOPIC: AGENCY
QUESTION
Later F bank foreclosed the mortgage for failure to pay the loan. A
notice of public auction sale was sent to Mrs. C and her husband.
Subsequently, F bank consolidated its title and obtained new titles in its
name after the redemption period lapsed. The counsel of Mrs. C contended
that the latter is not bound by the real estate mortgage executed by her
authorized agent, Ms. T. This is because the name of Mrs. C was not
indicated as the principal in the contract of loan. Thus, the counsel of Mrs.
C sought nullification of the real estate mortgage and extrajudicial
foreclosure sale, as well as the cancellation of F banks’s title over the
properties. Is the contention of Mrs. C’s counsel meritorious?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
TOPIC: AGENCY
X contracted the services of Y, for dry docking and ship repair works
on its vessel, the M/V Pacific Ocean. In compliance with the agreement, x,
through A, secured from Q Insurance Corp. through the latter’s agent, B, Q
Insurance Corp. Q Surety Inc. executed a special power of attorney in favor
of B. The SPA includes the authority to issue a surety bond in favor of
Department of Public Works and Highways, the National Power
Corporation, and other government agencies and report the same to the
company. Later, X failed to pay Y for the repair of the Ship despite repeated
demand. Y inform Q Insurance Corp. of X’s nonpayment, and to ask them to
fulfill their obligations as sureties, but Q Insurance Corp. refuse to pay
saying that that the surety bond was issued by its B, in excess of his
authority. Is Q Insurance Corp. liable for the acts of its agent in excess of its
authority?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Q Insurance Corp. not only clearly stated the limits of its agents’
powers in their contracts, it even stamped its surety bonds with the
restrictions, in order to alert the concerned parties. Moreover, its company
procedures, such as reporting requirements, show that it has designed a
system to monitor the insurance contracts issued by its agents. Q Insurance
Corp. cannot be faulted for B’s deliberate failure to notify it of his
transactions with X.
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
A loaned from Bank B for the amount of Php 3M.A then received
from the bank the amount of 1M as additional working capital evidenced by
a promissory npte and secured by a real estate mortgage in favor of the
bank coceringseveral real propertied. Later, A defaulted which caused the
bank to foreclose on the properties of A. A now claims that the foreclosure
was invalid on the ground of fraud and bad faith for releasing only 1M of
the agreed 3M loan andthat some of the foreclosed properties cannot be
included in the list of properties mortgaged as these were mortgaged with
another bank at that time.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Under Article 1934 of the Civil Code, a loan contract is perfected only upon
the delivery of the object of the contract.
In Palada vs Solidbank [G.R. NO. 172227, June 29, 2011] the Supreme
Court held that bad faith and fraud must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence.In this case, although petitioners applied for a P3 million loan, only the
amount of P1 million was approved by the bank because petitioners became
collaterally deficient when they failed to purchase TCT No. T-227331 which had
an appraised value of P1,944,000.00Hence, only the amount of P1 million was
released by the bank to petitioners
There was nothing on the face of the real estate mortgage contract to
arouse any suspicion of insertion or forgery. Except for the bare denials of
petitioner, no other evidence was presented to show that the signatures
appearing on the dorsal portion of the real estate mortgage contract are
forgeries.
Clearly, the positive presumption of the due execution of the subject real
estate mortgage outweighs bare and unsubstantiated denial and imputations of
fraud.
TOPIC: LOANS
Is C liable to Bank A?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
TOPIC: DEPOSIT
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
YES, XYZ Hotel is liable. Under Article 1962 of our Civil Code, “A
deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging
to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same.
If the safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the principal purpose of the
contract, there is no deposit but some other contract.
Therefore, XYZ Hotel is liable for the loss of J’s Pajero by virtue of the
necessary contract of deposit. (Durban Apartments Corp., etc. vs. Pioneer
Insurance and Surety Corp.;G.R. No. 179419. January 12, 2011.)
TOPIC: COMPROMISE
Compromise Agreement
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
In the case at bar, while the case is still pending before the Supreme
Court, X and ABC Company agreed to settle amicably by executing a
Compromise Agreement. Considering that such Compromise Agreement
was executed in accordance with law, morals, good customs, public order,
or public policy, the same was also adopted by the Labor Arbiter in
terminating the case.
Contract of Guaranty
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
A. No.
B.
YES. Reno’s undertaking was a guarantee. Reno was acting for
himself, not in representation of ABC Bank.
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
a.
The effect of failure of performance by Wood Construction gave rise
to the obligation of Performance Bond that must be complied by ABC
Insurance. The primary purpose for the acquisition of the
performance bond was to guarantee to Apple Galaxy Company that
the project would proceed in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the contract and to ensure the payment of a sum of
money in case the contractor would fail in the full performance of
the contract. When Apple Galaxy communicated to Wood
Construction that it was terminating the contract, ABC Insurance
liability, as surety, arose. The claim of Apple Galaxy Company against
ABC insurance occurred from the failure of Wood Construction to
perform its obligation under the building contract.
b.
A contract of suretyship is an agreement whereby a party, called the
surety, guarantees the performance by another party, called the
principal or obligor, of an obligation or undertaking in favor of
another party, called the obligee. Although the contract of a surety is
secondary only to a valid principal obligation, the surety becomes
liable for the debt or duty of another although it possesses no direct
or personal interest over the obligations nor does it receive any
benefit therefrom.
TOPIC: PLEDGE
Contract of Pledge
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
QUESTION
Who has the better title over the proceeds of the sale of sewing
machines?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
U-Bank has the better title over the proceeds of the sale of the
sewing machines. Though it is true that unnotarized Chattel Mortgage does
not bind B, however such fact does not affect the cause of action of U-Bank
since it is for a sum of money. U-Bank only needed to show that the loan of
A remains unpaid. As to the question whose agreement will take
precedence, Article 2096 of the Civil Code provides that "[a] pledge shall
not take effect against third persons if a description of the thing pledged
and the date of the pledge do not appear in a public instrument." Hence,
just like the chattel mortgage executed in favor of U-Bank, the pledge
executed by A in favor of B cannot bind U-Bank, however, since the Chattel
Mortgage in favor of U-Bank was executed earlier, U-Bank has a better right
over the motorized sewing machines under the doctrine of "first in time,
stronger in right" (prius tempore, potior jure).
TOPIC: ANTICHRESIS
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
TOPIC: MORTGAGE
QUESTION
A, an owner of a parcel of land mortgage the same to PCSO in favor
of unpaid tickets of B in the amount of One Million pesos. Three years later
A sold the parcel of land to C which in turn filed a complaint in the RTC
against A for failure to deliver the TCT which is in the possession of PCSO.
While the case is pending, PCSO registered the mortgage and forclosed the
parcel of land for the subsequent unpaid tickets of B after the amount of
One Million was paid. PCSO claimed that the sale was invalid for the
mortgage is a continuing guaranty. Is PCSO correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
QUESTION
S executed a deed of sale of a parcel of land in favor of R for a
consideration of P 10, 000 although, the land worth was double the price.
The contract provided that S will retain the possession of the land as lessee
and pay the land taxes thereon. Is the sale made by S valid?
Suggested Answer
In reality, the contract in the instant case is an equitable mortgage.
The land is merely the collateral or security for the payment of a loan of P
10,000. This is obvious from the deed of sale itself. In the first place, it says
that S will retain possession of the land as lessee and the latter shall pay the
taxes thereon.
QUESTION
Also, X failed to prove before the trial court that the price agreed
upon by the parties in 2005 was grossly inadequate. Even assuming that the
contract of sale with right to repurchase executed by X and Y in 2005 is an
equitable mortgage, the fact remains that from 2005 up to the filing of the
complaint in 2012, or a period of 7 years, she failed to redeem the
property. X claim that she had been paying the realty taxes follows that she
owns the property, not Y. Settled is the rule that tax receipts per se are not
conclusive evidence of land ownership absent other corroborative
evidence.
TOPIC: MORTGAGE
Pactum Commissorium
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER
B’s purchase of the subject property did not violate the prohibition
on pactum commissorium.
In the case at bar, the power of attorney provision did not provide
that the ownership over the subject property would automatically pass to B
upon A’s failure to pay the loan on time. What it granted was the mere
appointment of B, as attorney-in-fact, with authority to sell or otherwise
dispose of the subject property, and to apply the proceeds to the payment
of the loan. A’s decision to eventually sell the subject property to B was
well within the scope of her rights as the owner of the subject
property. The subject property was transferred to B by virtue of another
and separate contract, which is the Deed of Sale.
TOPIC: MORTGAGE
“Piece-Meal” Redemption
QUESTION
Spouses Jerloyd and Charo are the registered owners of seven (7)
parcels of land. Later, they executed a Real Estate Mortgage of all the lots
in favor of PCI Bank, predecessor of Banco De Oro (BDO), to secure a loan.
Subsequently, they sold the mortgaged lots to Lord without the consent
and knowledge of BDO. This sale was followed by a default on the part of
Jerloyd and Charo to pay their loans to BDO. Thus, BDO extrajudicially
foreclosed the mortgage and had the lots sold at public auction.
At the auction sale, BDO was proclaimed the highest bidder and
bought said lots. Twelve (12) days after the sale was registered, BDO sold
two (2) of the mortgaged lots to Candies under a Deed of Sale with
Agreement to Mortgage. Roughly a month before the one-year
redemption period was set to expire, Lord attempted to redeem the lots
sold to Candies. He tendered the amount to BDO and Candies, but both
refused, contending that the redemption should be for the full amount of
the winning bid plus interest for all the foreclosed properties. They further
contend that the mortgage is indivisible so in order for the tender to be
valid and effectual, it must be for the entire auction price plus legal
interest. Does the argument of Candies and BDO tenable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
That the situation obtaining in the case at bar is not within the
purview of the aforesaid rule on indivisibility is obvious since the aggregate
number of the lots which comprise the collaterals for the mortgage had
already been foreclosed and sold at public auction. There is no partial
payment or partial extinguishment of the obligation to speak of. The
aforesaid doctrine, which is actually intended for the protection of the
mortgagee, specifically refers to the release of the mortgage which secures
the satisfaction of the indebtedness and naturally presupposes that the
mortgage still exists. Once the mortgage is extinguished by a complete
foreclosure thereof, said doctrine of indivisibility ceases to apply since,
with the full payment of the debt, there is nothing more to
secure. Nothing in the law prohibits the piecemeal redemption of
properties sold at one foreclosure proceeding.
TOPIC: QUASI-CONTRACTS
Solutio Indebiti
QUESTION
Suggested Answer:
The contention is without merit. Article 1956 of the Civil Code, which
refers to monetary interest, specifically mandates that no interest shall be
due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing.
In the case at bar, the parties did not agree in writing as to the
charging of interest for the loan. Therefore, X has no right to receive
payment for the interest and by the principle of solutio indebiti, he must
return the payment made by mistake of Y.
TOPIC: DAMAGES
QUESTION
Suggested Answer:
TOPIC: DAMAGES
QUESTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. One of the essential facts which the plaintiff must prove in order that
he can recover from the defendant is the relation of cause and effect
between the defendant’s negligence and the damage or injury which
he has incurred. This is more frequently known as the doctrine of
proximate cause. It is defined as that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury and without which the result would not have
incurred.
2. The doctrine of contributory negligence may be stated as follows: If
the negligence of the plaintiff cooperated with the negligence of the
defendant in bringing about the accident causing the injury
complained of, such negligence of the plaintiff would be an absolute
bar to recovery. If the negligence of the plaintiff was merely
contributory to his injury, the immediate and proximate cause of the
accident causing the injury being the defendant’s negligence, such
negligence would be not be a bar to recovery, but the amount
recoverable shall be mitigated by the courts.
TOPIC: DAMAGES
QUESTION
What are the different kinds of damages recoverable under the New Civil
Code? Define each of them.
SUGGESTED ANSWER