Professional Documents
Culture Documents
QuickStartGuide SanDiskSecureAccessV2.0
QuickStartGuide SanDiskSecureAccessV2.0
1. Borre vs. CA, G.R. No. L-57204, March 14, 1988, 158 SCRA
560
ANS. No, because when a right to sue upon a civil obligation has
lapsed by extinctive prescription, the obligor who voluntarily
performs the contract cannot recover what he has delivered or the
value of the service he has rendered. (Art.1424, NCC; DBP vs. Adil,
G.R. No. L-48889, May 11, 1988).
3. Mercado vs. Espiritu, 37 Phil. 215
Albano (Estoppel)
A and B entered into a contract whereby both parties benefited out of
it. At the time of the commencement of their rights, however, A was
a minor. Can he attack
the validity oTthe contract? Why?
ANS. No. In Mercado vs. Espiritu, 37 Phil. 215, it was said that
since the minor was under estoppel, he cannot question the validity of
the contract. (SiaSuan and Chiao vs. Alcantara, March 4, 1950).
4. Roblett Industrial Corporation vs. CA, et. al., G.R. No. 116682,
January 2, 1997, 77 SCAD 642, citing Panay Electric Co. vs. CA,
174 SCRA 500; Pureza vs. CA, G.R. No. 122053, May 15, 1998,
94 SCAD 303
ANS. No, because a seller need not be the owner of the property at
the time of the perfection of the contract, but he must be the owner at
the time of the delivery. (Art. 1459, NCC).
Furthermore,whereonewhoisnot yet theowner of a property sells it to
another and subsequently acquires ownership over the same, such
title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee. (Art. 1434,
NCC; Bucton vs. Gabar, 55 SCRA 499; Martin vs. Reyes, 91 Phil.
666).
De Leon 1434
The purchaser is also deemed a purchaser in good faith.
(seeInquimboy vs. Vda. de Cruz, 108 Phil. 1054 [1960]; also Bucton
vs.Gabar, 55 SCRA 499 [1974].)
6. PBCOM vs. CA, et. al., G.R. No. 109803, April 20, 1998, 93
SCAD 601
ANS. No. Under the law, when without the knowledge or against the
will of the debtor, a third person pays a debt which the obligor is not
legally bound to pay because the action thereon has prescribed, but
the debtor voluntarily reimburses the third person, the obligor cannot
recover what he has paid.
ANS. No. Under the law, when a testate or intestate heir voluntarily
pays a debt of the decedent exceeding the value of the property which
he received by will or by the law of intestacy from the estate of the
deceased, the payment is valid and cannot be rescinded by the payer.
ANS. No, because when a will is declared void because it has not
been executed in accordance with the formalities required by law, but
one of the intestate heirs, after the settlement of the debts of the
deceased, pays a legacy in compliance with a clause in the defective
will, the payment is effective and irrevocable.
Art. 1423, NCC
What are natural obligations? civil obligations?
Art.1431, NCC
What is estoppel?
Art. 1426
A, a minor, entered into a contract with a suijuris, without the consent
of his (A’s) parents. In said contract, A received a car. This car was
afterwards destroyed by a fortuitous event. Later when the contract
was annulled, A returned voluntarily the value of the car although he
had not profited or benefited a single centavo from the car. Has he
now the right to demand that the price be returned?
ANS.: No more.
Art. 1427
Suppose the object is non-consumable, does the Article apply?
Art. 1438
A has a diamond ring. He allowed B to assume apparent ownership
over the ring so that B might sell the same. Instead, B pledged the
ring with C to obtain a loan. The money lent was later handed over to
A. Later A attacks the validity of the pledge claiming that under the
law, the pledgee must be the owner thereof, and since B in this case
acted without authority, the pledge is invalid. Is A allowed to do this?
ANS.: No, A is not allowed to do this. His receipt of the sum for
which the pledge was made is an implied ratification of the pledge
and A is, therefore, in estoppel.
ANS: Yes. Tomas can he held liable under the doctrine of estoppel.
But as regards the partner among themselves, only Rene are liable.
Tomas cannot be held liable since there was no proper notification or
publication. In the event that Tomas is made to pay the liability to
third person, he has right to seek reimbursement from Rene and Jose.
(Answer by UP LawCenter)