Pls memorize the following!Art. 1198. The debtor shall lose every right to make use of period - midterm exam and additional question sa quiz natinThanks for the midterm resource Shamaine ur a life saver!Art. 1423 - natural obligationsNote: one additional question sa quiz natin is to enumerate the instances where natural obligation Applies and give examples. These are the answers:1. Art. 14242. Art. 14253. Art. 14264. Art. 14275. Art. 14286. Art. 14297. Art. 1430

Hi guys! Ito sagot ko sa Test I and II. Pag may mali po ako pls pacorrect na lang po. I tried to include my basis for the false answer naman. Thank you.

Reviewer:I.a. False. Art. 1383. The action for rescission is subsidiary; it cannot be instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal means to obtain reparation for the same.b.True. Qualified: Art. 1356. Xxx However, when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and enforceable.c. True. Dation in payment (dacion en pago) conveyance of ownership of a thing as an accepted equivalent of performance.d. True. Facultative Obligation – one where only one prestation has been agreed upon but the obligor may render another in substitution. (Alternative O. – one where various prestations are due but the performance of one of them is sufficient as determined by the choice, which as a general rule, belongs to the debtor.e. False. Art. 1359 (2) If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of the minds of the parties, the proper remedy is not reformation but annulment of the contract.

Note:• Reformation is a remedy by means of which a written instrument is amended or rectified so as to express or conform to the real agreement or intention of the parties when by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident, the instrument fails to express such agreement or intention. IT PRESUPPOSES MEETING OF MINDS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

• ANNULMENT of Contract NO MEETING OF MINDS

f. TRUE. g.TRUE.h. False. Under Art 1423. Natural Obligations which are voluntarilly fulfilled cannot be recovered. Note: Art. 1423 – based on equity and natural law, which do not grant a right of action to enforce their performance, but after voluntary fulfillment by the obligor, authorize the retention or that has been delivered or rendered by reason thereof.

i. TRUE. Perfection of Contract (2nd Stage – Stages of life of a contract) This is when the parties have come to a definite agreement or meeting of the minds regarding the subject matter and cause of the contract.j. True.

II.A. Define Statute of Frauds. Give 3 cases where statute of frauds applies.Statute of Frauds – Purpose is to prevent fraud, and not to encourage the same. Thus, certain agreements are required to be in writing so that they be enforced.1) Agreement not to be performed within one year from the making thereof –Ex. On March 10, 2015, Nina entered into an oral contract with Jaeho for the construction of the former’s house to begin on March 14, 2016. The contract must be in writing to be enforceable.

2) Promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another –Ex. Jaeho agreed to be the guarantor of Ezon in his obligation to Parker. Jaeho, in this case has a special promise to answer the debt of Ezon in case Ezon fails. The promise by Jaeho must be in writing in order to be enforceable. 3) Agreement in consideration of Marriage other than mutual promise to marry –Ex. Jaeho promises to build a house to SpiderMan worth 50M if Spider Man will marry him. This must appear in writing in order to be enforceable unless Jaeho ratifies the agreement.

B. Define Estoppel. Differentiate estoppels in pias from estoppels by deed.Estoppel – a condition or state by virtue of which as admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

Estoppel in pais or by conduct – As related to the party to be stopped:(a) Conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts, or at least which is calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with those which the party subsequently attempts to assert.(b) The intention or at least the expectation, that such conduct shall be acted upon or influence, the other party or other persons; and(c) Knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts

Estoppel by deed. – It is a bar which precludes one party to a deed and his privies from asserting as against the other party and his privies any right or title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth or any material facts asserted in it.

Estoppel in pais or equitable estoppels is distinguished from Estoppel by deed or technical estoppels (includes estoppels by record) in that it arises out of the acts or conduct of the party stopped and not from a record. While technical estoppels are regulated by well-settled rules and admit certain application, it would be difficult to prescribe a rule of universal application in regard to what are called estoppels in pais, depending as they do on the particular circumstances of the case.

Guys! For those na nahihirapang bumasa!Case AOn January 3, 2004, Carlito, 16 years old, borrowed Php 15,000.00 from his close friend Jose, then 21 years of age, promising to pay the latter on January 5, 2006, and undertaking to pledge as security for the payment of the loan, a one-carat male ring owned by Carlos, Carlito’s own father. Immediately after receiving the proceeds of the loan, Carlito asked his father for permission to pledge the latter’s ring for the said loan. Carlos scolded his son and told him not to borrow money even from friends. Carlos also refused to allow his son to pledge his ring. In any case, Carlito went back to Jose and assured him that he could now consider the ring as a pledge to secure the payment of the subject loan. On January 20, 2004, Jose met Carlos at a grocery store and the former reminded the latter that the latter’s ring was pledge to secure the payment of Carlito’s loan. Carlos was surprised and said he did not agree to the pledge, nor for his son taking up the loan.Thereupon, on January 21, 2004, Jose called Calito and demanded immediate payment of the loan. Carlito resisted the demand saying that the loan was due January 5, 2006 and asserted that in any case the loan transaction was void, because he was only 16 years old when he contracted the same. Jose threatened to sue Calito to collect the obligation.a. May Carlitos resist the demand for payment on the ground that the loan was due for payment only on January 5, 2006? Explain (5pts)b. Is Jose’s demand proper given that Carlito was only 16 years old at the time the loan was contracted? Explain (5pts)On January 29(?), 2004, when he learned of the threat, and in order to forestall the threat of a court suit, Carlos want to see Jose and assured him that he was recognizing his son’s loan obligation, and that he was pledging his ring, which he would bring to him (Jose) in two days to secure the payment of the obligation on due date, Jose agreed to the pledge. Two days passed without Carlos delivering the ring. Consequently, on February 16m 2004, Jose sued Carlito for collection of the loan. This time Carlito interposed the defenses that the loan obligation was void because he was only 16 years old at the time the loan was contracted, and in any case because the loan was secured by a pledge on the ring, he (Carlito) was entitled to the benefit of the period, i.e., until January 5 2006, within which to pay the loan.c. Is Carlito’s defense of age proper? Explain (5pts)d. Is Carlito entitled to the benefit of a period under the circumstances? Explain 5ptsIn due course, the court rendered judgment in the case in favor of Jose, which judgment became final and executor on January 20, 2007. By this time however Jose was already in US where he stayed for 12 years. Upon his return, he sought the implementation of the judgment therein.e. May the judgment in favor of Jose be executed/satisfied under the circumstances? Explain 5pts.The court however denied the prayer for a writ of execution. In any case, Carlito, now about 28 years

old, paid the loan obligation as adjudged by the Court believing that he has both the legal and moral duty to do so.f. May Carlito recover from Jose the payment he made under the circumstances? Explain (5pts)

Test III.a. No. Art. 1198. The debtor shall lose every right to make use of the period (2) When he does not furnish to the creditor the guaranties or securities which he has promised. (Note: Voidable C. po ito so in effect it is valid until annulled by proper action in court.) b. Yes. Art. 1399. When the defect of the contract consist in the incapacity of one of the parties, the incapacitated person is not obliged to make any restitution except insofar as he has been benefitted by the thing or price received by himc. No. Since his father ratified the agreement. Art. 1394 Ratification may be effected by the guardian of the incapacitated persond. No. Same answer with letter Ae. No. The action has already prescribed under Art. 1144 the following action must be brought within 10 years from the time the right of action accrues: (par. 3) upon judgementf. No. This is an example of a natural obligation. Art. 1423 xxx Natural obligations, not being based on positive law but on equity and natural law, do not grant a right of action to enforce their performance BUT AFTER VOLUNTARY FULFILLMENT BY THE OBLIGOR, THEY AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION OF WHAT HAS BEEN DELIVERED OR RENDERED BY REASON THEREOF.

Hi guys! Ito po napagusapan namin ni Eflynne Gomez pls correct na lng po:

Test III.

a. No. Art. 1198. The debtor shall lose every right to make use of the period (2) When he does not furnish to the creditor the guaranties or securities which he has promised. (Note: Voidable C. po ito so in effect it is valid until annulled by proper action in court.) b. Yes. Art. 1399. When the defect of the contract consist in the incapacity of one of the parties, the incapacitated person is not obliged to make any restitution except insofar as he has been benefitted by the thing or price received by himc. No. Since his father ratified the agreement. Art. 1394 Ratification may be effected by the guardian of the incapacitated persond. No. Same answer with letter Ae. No. The action has already prescribed under Art. 1144 the following action must be brought within 10 years from the time the right of action accrues: (par. 3) upon judgementf. No. This is an example of a natural obligation. Art. 1423 xxx Natural obligations, not being based on positive law but on equity and natural law, do not grant a right of action to enforce their performance BUT AFTER VOLUNTARY FULFILLMENT BY THE OBLIGOR, THEY AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION OF WHAT HAS BEEN DELIVERED OR RENDERED BY REASON THEREOF.