Suggested answers to the Obligations and Contracts items in the 2015 Civil Law Bar Exam

Disclaimer: These answers may not necessarily be correct. All articles refer to the Civil Code. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Credits also to my block mates, Carlo Borromeo, Jerome Valencia, and Andrea Alegre, who answered this exam with me as part of reviewing for our Obligations and Contracts (Oblicon) final exam.

The 2015 Civil Law Bar Exam may be viewed here.


X. NO, I do not agree. One, the clothing materials are indeterminate things, absent any stipulation that the dresses would be made only using the materials Karla provided. Article 1263 applies.

Two, X is already in delay. “On the day X was supposed to deliver Karla’s dresses, X called up Karla to say that she had an urgent matter to attend to and will deliver them the next day.” Assuming there is a demand, Article 1165, paragraph 3 applies “If the obligor delays, or has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do not have the same interest, he shall be responsible for any fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery.”

XI. The contract was voidable, under Article 1390(1), “Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract.” Jackie can no longer recover the property. One, the action has prescribed. Article 1391 states, “The action for annulment shall be brought within four years. This period shall begin: xxx And when the action refers to contracts entered into by minors or other incapacitated persons, from the time the guardianship ceases.” Jackie wanted to annul the sale only when she was already 25 years old, beyond the four-year period when the guardianship ceases (from 18 years of age under RA 6809 to when she was 22 years of age).

XII.

A – No, Iya may not. Article 1220 applies, “The remission of the whole obligation, obtained by one of the solidary debtors, does not entitle him to reimbursement from his co-debtors.”

B – No, Cita cannot. Solidarity is never presumed, according to Article 1207. In the absence of stipulation, the obligation in this case is joint.

XIII.

A – Yes, Kyla can. The obligation in this case is a reciprocal obligation. Once the shop accepted Kyla’s payment, it is already in delay. Article 1169, 3rd par. provides, “In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins.” X’s death cannot release the shop from liability. Article 1165, 3rd par. states “If the obligor delays, or has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more persons who do not have the same interest, he shall be responsible for any fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery. “

B – not Oblicon question

XIV.

A – No, it will not. Damages were already awarded in the criminal action. Article 2177 provides, “But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.” Had the civil action been reserved, the case of Barredo v. Garcia would have applied.

B – Yes, the employer’s liability is solidary as provided for in Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Civil damages may be satisfied by first showing the driver is insolvent and the writ of execution is unsatisfied before the employer can be held liable.

XV.

A – No, the payment of interest by Sara is not a natural obligation. Sara had no such obligation. Julia will only be entitled to interest if Sara is in delay, which is from the time Sara does not comply with the demand for payment (Cetus v. CA). Article 1169, 1st paragraph 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.” Here, Sara paid her debt immediately upon demand.

B – Article 1423

XVI.

A – No, the agreement is not valid. First, it is a pactum commisorium agreement which is prohibited under Article 2088, “The creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.” (one of the special disqualifications).
(Additional, akin lang ito) Thus, Jane did not own the jewelry, and thus, the agreement is void for absence of the essential requisite of object (Article 1409).

B – My answer:

One side – Yes. Donna not in pari delicto. “She was made to sign an agreement that if she cannot pay her debt within six months, Jane could immediately appropriate the jewelry for herself.” Only Jane was at fault.

Other – No, Donna in pari delicto. Ignorance of the law excuses no one (Article 3). She should have known of Article 2088.

Carlo – NO. Under Article 1385, “Neither shall rescission take place when the things which are the object of the contract are legally in the possession of third persons who did not act in bad faith.”

My concern – this applies to rescissible, not void contracts

XVII. No, the deed of sale is void for illegal consideration (1409(1)), since baccarat is prohibited under PD1602 as a criminal offense. However, Z is in pari delicto under Article 1411. He cannot bring the action to have the deed declared void.

XVIII – not Oblicon question

XIX. NO, the action for implied trusts prescribes in 10 years, from the date of the discovery of the mistake or fraud, presumed from the issuance of the titles under the trustee’s name (Article 1144, Aznar v. Heirs of Aying). In this case, only 5 years have passed.

XX. not Oblicon question

Advertisements