You are on page 1of 2

Q1. A Filipino vendor of a land sought to void a sale later on voided.

The minor later on voluntarily made


of real property on the ground that the vendee, a a restitution of what he has received. Can he
realty corporation which is 40 % Chinese recover what he delivered considering that it was a
individuals owned and 60% Filipino individuals subject of a voided contract?
corporation. Will the action to void the deed of sale
prosper? A4. No. this is under the natural obligation. The
minor is already almost of age of majority and can
A1. No. Under the law, if the corporation is in the be presumed to have acted with discernment and
realty business, a 40% foreign and 60% Filipino understood what he was doing when he restituted
owned is allowed to own real properties here in the what he had received despite that he was then a
Philippines. The corporation is considered to have minor. He cannot therefore recover what he has
a Filipino nationality. Sale is deemed valid. already delivered.

Q2. A farmer grantee of the Comprehensive Q5. Sonia sold to Babylyn 100 bags of cement at
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) owns a land P70 per bag for a total price of P70,000. Sonia was
which under the law, prohibits him from disposing able to deliver only 98 bags because the two bags
his land within 10 years from the time the title was were stolen without the fault of Sonia.
issued to him. In violation of the law, he sold the
land which was granted to him under the CARP. (a) Has Sonia the right to insist that Babylyn pay for
Now the farmer filed an action to void the sale and the 98 bags since there was no fault in her part and
to reacquire his land. Will his action prosper for him only two bags are lacking?
to be able to get back his land?
A5(a) No Sonia cannot insist. Bags of cement were
A2. Since the law provides so that for the 10 year the object of this contract. This is a mass of
period they cannot dispose, then he can recover specific goods, and the rule under Art. 1484 is to
back his land and the buyer bought it with a risk. apply. Distinction should be made with the rule
The law is supposed to help out farmers to own under Art. 1480 as to the point when the thing got
their own lands, and to be productive at the same lost, and the kind of object involved in the contract,
time. CARP law was intended to provide lands to if it is a specific good or a mass of specific good
the landless to help out stamp poverty. The and whether the thing got lost before perfection of
prohibition is annotated in the title and so the buyer the contract, or at the time of the perfection, or after
bears the risk when he bought the land covered perfection but before its delivery and or got lost
under the CARP. after its delivery.

Q3. A son of his deceased mother promised to pay (b) With the same set of facts in Q5, what rights, if
off the prescribed debt of his mother. Was there a any, are given by law to Babylyn?
sufficient consideration to make valid and effective
the promise of the son to pay the same? A5(b) Babylyn can choose between withdrawing
from the contract of sale or paying its proportionate
A3. This is a case of a natural obligation entered price and demanding for the remaining part.
into by the son. The sons promise here is
considered as a sufficient consideration. When he (c) In the same set of facts in Q5, the price was
made the promise, despite that the debt was fixed at P70,000 for the whole lot, irrespective of
already prescribed, then he waived the prescriptive the number of bags which happens to be also 100
period and had assumed to pay off his mothers bags. Will your answer still be the same?
debt.
A5(c) No, Babylyn has to pay for the 98 bags fixed
Q4. A minor who is 16 years old and already in first at P70,000 even if 2 bags are lacking. Price was
year college had entered into a contract which was set for the whole lot and the amount which was lost
which is 2 out of the 100, is not a substantial had a separation of properties under their pre-
number to have affected their contract. nuptial agreement, or a judicial separation of
property had been decreed by the court between
Q6. Bobby, a minor, bought a pair of imported the spouses.
shoes worth P3,000 from a department store. Can
Felix, his father, cancel the sale on the ground of Q8. Stephen sold to Buenaventura bags of cement
the minority of Bobby? at P70 per bag for a total price of P70,000. Stephen
was able to deliver only 98 bags because the two
A6. Not anymore. Shoes are considered as bags were stolen without the fault of Stephen. Does
necessaries and Bobby being a minor had Stephen have the right to insist that Buenaventura
benefited from it. The fact that it is imported shoes, pay for the 98 bags since there was no fault on his
and Bobby was able to afford it, then basing on his part and only two bags are lacking? What rights, if
capacity, he must be able to afford the same, and it any, are given by law to B?
was within his financial capability to purchase the A8. Please refer to answer in A5(a)
same. If the price can be considered as
unreasonable, considering all the circumstances, Q9. In the same set of facts in Q8, the price was
then an amount beyond what is reasonable can be fixed at P70,000 for the whole lot, irrespective of
recovered. Of course, if Bobby is a minor of such the number of bags which happens to be also 100
age, like 6 or 7 years old, who does not have any bags. Will your answer still be the same?
discernment of what he is doing, then it can be that
the father may ask for the sale to be cancelled, it A9. Please refer to answer in A5(c).
being a voidable contract.
Q10. Piolo bought a medicine from a drug store. Its
Q7. Honesto and Wilhelmina are husband and wife. label says that it provides a "very effective relief
After selling his properties to Wilhelmina, Honesto from asthma." However, Piolo continues to suffer
borrowed a big amount of money from Concepcion. from asthma attacks. Does Piolo have the right to
It appears that Honesto is now bankrupt. Does complain for misrepresentation against the drug
Concepcion have the right to question the sale of manufacturer.
Honesto's property to Wilhelmina in order to have
the said property answer for Honesto's A10. No. Mere usual exaggerations in trade and not
indebtedness to him? to be considered as a warranty. Or can be
considered as an expression of an opinion.
A7. Yes, Concpecion can question the sale of
Honestos properties to Wilhelmina. Sale between
spouses is prohibited under the law, unless they