Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
LAWS ON OBLIGATION (AND CONTRACTS IF
YOU MAY; yeah, much obliged, but nope)
TRUE OR FALSE
1. If the debtor obliged to do something fails to
do it, an action for specific performance will
prosper.
A. FALSE, because a judgment on an action for
specific performance of an OBLIGATION TO
DO necessarily compels someone “to do”
and it will amount to involuntary
servitude. The remedy is to enter into a
contract with another for the performance
of an obligation to do at the debtor’s
expense. (You cannot enter into “another
contract” with someone who reneged in his
obligation to you, it’s absurd.)
EXCEPTION:
 If the order “to do” is a punishment
for a crime (e.g., community cleaning;
very sharp ehh?).
Constitution on Bill of Rights - SECTION 18 (2)
No involuntary servitude in any form shall
exist except as a punishment for a crime after
due conviction.
Civil Code on Work and Labor - Article 1703.
No contract which practically amounts to
involuntary servitude, under any guise
whatsoever, shall be valid (invalid daw, wak
malito).
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
REMEDIES SO IT WONT BE INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE
Art. 1167. If a person obliged to do something
fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his
cost.
This same rule shall be observed if he does it in
contravention of the tenor of the obligation.
On Lease – usurpation by third persons.
Art. 1663. The lessee is obliged to bring to the
knowledge of the proprietor every usurpation
or untoward act committed by 3rd persons upon
the property leased; as well as the necessity for
its repairs. If lessor fails to make urgent repairs,
the lessee may cause the reparation at the
lessor’s cost.
On Contract for a Piece of Work
Art. 1715. The contract shall execute the work
at the quality of work agreed upon with no
defect which would destroy, or lessen the value
or fitness for ordinary or stipulated use of, the
property.
Should the work be not of such quality, the
employer may require that the contractor
remove the defect or execute another work. If
the contract fails or refuses to comply with this
obligation, the employer may have the defect
removed or another work executed, at the
contractor's cost.
Art. 1721. On the other hand, if it is the
employer who delays or fails to perform an act
required in the execution of the work, the
contractor is entitled to a reasonable
compensation.
On Common Carriers (Contracts for Common
Carriage)
Art. 1765. The common carrier’s repeated
failure to comply with his duty to observe
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
extraordinary diligence shall be a ground for
the cancelation of the certificate of public
convenience granted to it.
2. In conditional obligations, the obligation
arises upon the happening of the condition.
A. FALSE. There are different kinds of
conditional obligations. It is only true with
respect to conditional obligations wherein
the obligation itself and the acquisition of
rights therefrom, only arise upon the event
of the suspensive condition. A conditional
obligation which has a resolutory condition
extinguishes the obligation upon the event
of the resolutory condition. (Art. 1181)
3. In case of non-compliance of obligations with
a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the
indemnity for damages and the payment of
interest.
A. FALSE. The statement is not absolute. A
stipulation to the contrary is always an
exception (oh believe me, that “stipulation
to the contrary” will pester you every time
so here I’ll save you the time and get
pestered now)
That “stipulation to the contrary” that
everyone loves: you may designate it as
“stipulation to the contrary doctrine”. It
signifies primacy of stipulation being the law
between the parties. Believe me it’s
important; a lot of our brethren died because
they ignore it. Do you remember that
allowance of partial consignation that you
cannot find anywhere in the code? It’s within
that phrase.
EFFIN EXAMPLES: (general to all obligations,
you try to find per contract, I’m tired)
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
Art. 1226. In obligations with a penal clause, the
penalty shall substitute the indemnity for
damages and the payment of interests in case
of noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to
the contrary.
Art. 1163. Every person obliged to give
something is also obliged to take care of it with
the proper diligence of a good father of a
family, unless the law or the stipulation of the
parties requires another standard of care.
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by
the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
stipulation, or when the nature of the
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events
which could not be foreseen, or which, though
foreseen, were inevitable.
Art. 1262. When by law or stipulation, the
obligor is liable even for fortuitous events, the
loss of the thing does not extinguish the
obligation, and he shall be responsible for
damages. The same rule applies when the
nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk.
Art. 1178. Subject to the laws, all rights
acquired in virtue of an obligation are
transmissible, if there has been no stipulation
to the contrary.
Art. 1200. In the existence of multiple and
alternative prestations within an obligation, the
right of choice belongs to the debtor, unless it
has been expressly granted to the creditor.
Art. 1236. The creditor is not bound to accept
payment or performance by a third person
who has no interest in the fulfillment of the
obligation, unless there is a stipulation to the
contrary.
Art. 1225. However, even though the object or
service may be physically divisible, an
obligation is indivisible if so provided by law or
intended by the parties (stipulated!)
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
Art. 1247. Unless it is otherwise stipulated, the
extrajudicial expenses required by the payment
(or performance) shall be for the account of the
debtor. With regard to judicial costs, the Rules
of Court shall govern.
Art. 1252. In cases of various debts of the same
kind in favor of one and the same creditor;
unless the parties so stipulate, or when the
application of payment is made by the party for
whose benefit the term has been constituted,
the payments shall not be made to apply on
debts which are not yet due.
Art. 1255. Payment by cession, unless there is
stipulation to the contrary, shall only release
the debtor from responsibility for the net
proceeds of the thing assigned. (Here it is. So,
partial consignation extinguishes an obligation
if it is stipulated).
Art. 1248. Unless there is an express stipulation
to that effect, the creditor cannot be compelled
to partially receive the prestations in which the
obligation consists. Neither may the debtor be
required to make partial payments. (eto
naman, partial payment, sabe ko sayo
importante yan eh)
Art. 1251. There being no express stipulation
and if the undertaking is to deliver a
determinate thing, the payment shall be made
wherever the thing might be at the moment
the obligation was constituted.
Art. 1299. In novation, if the original obligation
was subject to a suspensive or resolutory
condition, the new obligation shall be under
the same condition, unless it is otherwise
stipulated.
Art. 1303. Subrogation transfers to the persons
subrogated the credit with all the rights thereto
appertaining, either against the debtor or
against third person, be they guarantors or
possessors of mortgages, subject to stipulation
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
in a conventional subrogation. (o ibig sabihin
nito, may conventional subrogation lang kapag
stipulated – pag sinabe mong stipulated, ibig
sabihin “agreed” or may “agreement”.
Fantastic, iba talaga nagagawa ni stipulation..
eazzyyy!, gngwa mue?….; op! we end here.
Bahala na kayo sa contracts, di ko pa exam yan)
4. The insolvency of one debtor will increase the
liability of his co-debtors.
A. FALSE. This does not always apply. The
liability will not increase if the obligation is
joint.
Art. 1217. When one of the solidary debtors
cannot, because of his insolvency, reimburse
his share to the debtor paying the obligation,
such share shall be borne by all his co-debtors,
in proportion to the debt of each.
No law compels able joint co-debtors to pay off
the insolvent co-debtor’s debt.
5. That an obligation to deliver, or to do, would
result in delay only upon the time when the
obligee judicially or extra-judicially demands
from them the fulfillment of their obligation.
A. FALSE. Judicial or Extra-Judicial Demand is
not the only situation when an obligor incur
in delay. Delay shall also incur, without
necessity of demand, when: a) there is a
law or stipulation providing that there is no
need for a demand for incurring in delay; b)
when the designation of the time of
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
delivery or service is a controlling motive
for the establishment of the contract; c)
when the obligor has rendered the
obligation beyond his power to perform,
making the demand useless; d) in
reciprocal obligations, from the moment
one of the parties fulfilled his obligation,
delay by the other begins. (Art. 1169)
6. Proof of actual damages suffered by the
creditor is not necessary in order that the
penalty may be demanded.
A. TRUE. Express provision, Art. 1228.
A penalty clause is largely governed by
stipulation. The courts can only reduce it if
unconscionable.
Art. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the
penalty when the principal obligation has been
complied with partly or irregularly by the
debtor. Even if there has been no performance,
the penalty may also be reduced by the courts
if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.
7. An obligation which is payable upon the
death of Mr. X within five years from its
execution is a conditional obligation.
A. TRUE. The obligation shall arise upon the
death of Mr. X; the phrase “within 5 years”
is only a period of payment. A condition is
an event.
8. Solidarity may exist although the creditors
and the debtors may not be bound in the same
manner and by the same periods and
conditions.
A. TRUE. Art. 1207 provides that “there is a
solidary liability only when the obligation
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
expressly so states, or when the law or the
nature of the obligation requires solidarity.”
9. When the fulfillment of the condition
depends upon the sole will of the debtor, the
obligation shall be void.
A. FALSE. A resolutory condition which
depends upon the sole will of the debtor is
not void because such event does not give
rise to an obligation and its consequential
rights and liabilities, rather it extinguishes
the same. A resolutory condition is an event
which extinguishes an already existing right
or obligation. The law does not care on
whose will the resolutory condition
depends (Art. 1182 only refers to suspensive
condition because it vests rights and
obligations; take note as well that in Art.
1197, the courts shall also fix the duration
of the period when it depends upon the will
of the debtor).
Resolutory Events
Art. 1179. Every obligation which contains a
resolutory condition shall also be demandable,
without prejudice to the effects of the
happening of the event.
Art. 1193. Obligations with a resolutory period
take effect at once, but terminate upon arrival
of the day certain.
A day certain is understood to be that which
must necessarily come, although it may not be
known when. If the uncertainty consists in
whether the day will come or not, the
obligation is conditional.
Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished, among
others, by fulfillment of a resolutory condition.
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
Art. 1299. In novation, if the original obligation
was subject to a suspensive or resolutory
condition, the new obligation shall be under the
same condition, unless it is otherwise
stipulated.
Art. 1465. Things subject to a resolutory
condition may be the object of the contract of
sale.
Art. 2091. The contract of pledge or mortgage
may secure all kinds of obligations, be they pure
or subject to a suspensive or resolutory
condition.
10. In conjunctive obligations, the right of
choice belongs to the debtor, unless it has been
expressly granted to the creditor.
A. FALSE. There is no right of choice in a
conjunctive obligation. The rules on
alternative obligations do not apply. A
conjunctive obligation is one where the
debtor has to perform several prestations
and is only extinguished by the
performance of all of them.
Art. 1200. In the existence of multiple and
alternative prestations within an obligation, the
right of choice belongs to the debtor, unless it
has been expressly granted to the creditor. The
debtor cannot choose prestations which have
become impossible, unlawful, or impracticable.
Art. 1205. When the choice has been expressly
given to the creditor, the obligation shall cease
to be alternative from the day when the
selection has been communicated to the
debtor.
An alternative obligation consists of multiple
prestation in which payment or performance of
any one of them extinguishes the obligation.
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
When only one prestation has been agreed
upon, but the obligor may render another in
substitution, the obligation is called facultative
obligation (Art. 1206)
If the obligation consisted of performing all
multiple prestation, it is a conjunctive
obligation (rules on alternative obligations do
not apply).
Art. 1204. The creditor shall have a right to
indemnity for damages when, through the
fault of the debtor, all the things which are
alternatively the object of the obligation have
been lost, or the compliance of the obligation
has become impossible. The indemnity shall be
based on the last prestation lost or which has
become impossible. Damages other than the
value of the last thing or service may also be
awarded.
Art. 1265. Whenever the thing is lost in the
possession of the debtor, it shall be presumed
that the loss was due to his fault. This
presumption does not apply when the loss
happened in the event of an earthquake, flood,
storm, or other natural calamity.
Art. 1199. A person alternatively bound by
different prestations shall completely perform
one of them. (ONLY ONE OF THEM; if the
obligation consisted of performing all multiple
prestation, the obligation is not alternative;
instead, it is a “conjunctive obligation” which
has nothing to do with the rules on alternative
obligations)
The creditor cannot be compelled to receive
part of one and part of the other undertaking.
(The debtor cannot also be compelled to deliver
or serve partly; both not absolute when the debt
is in part liquidated and in part unliquidated; in
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
such case, the creditor may DEMAND and the
debtor may EFFECT payment of liquidated debts
without waiting for liquidation of the other).
In relation to divisible /indivisible obligation
Art. 1225. An obligation to give determinate
things or to give things not susceptible of partial
performance is deemed an indivisible
obligation. On the other hand, if the obligation
has an objective to execute the prestation for a
certain number of days, or for a certain
measurement, or for analogous prestations
which are susceptible of partial performance, it
shall be a divisible obligation, unless stipulated
otherwise.
In obligations not to do, divisibility or
indivisibility shall be determined by the
character of the prestation in each particular
case.
There is partiality in the following situations:
 In obligations having an objective to
execute the prestation for a certain
number of days;
 In obligations having an objective to
execute the prestation for a certain
measurement;
 In alternative obligations stipulating an
allowance or compulsion upon the
parties to deliver or serve, and/or
receive a part of one and a part of
another.
In relation to payment or performance
Art. 1248. Unless there is an express stipulation
to that effect, the creditor cannot be
compelled partially to receive the prestations
in which the obligation consists. Neither may
the debtor be required to make partial
payments.
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
However, when the debt is in part liquidated
and in part unliquidated, the creditor may
demand and the debtor may effect the
payment of the former without waiting for the
liquidation of the latter.
Art. 1304. A creditor, to whom partial payment
has been made, may exercise his right for the
remainder (in a separate action), and he shall
be preferred to the person who has been
subrogated in his place in virtue of the partial
payment of the same credit.
11. It is a concept that derives from the
principle that since mutual agreement can
create a contract, __________ by the parties
can cause its extinguishment.
B. Mutual disagreement or dissent (This is a
contractual principle contemplating void or
annullable contracts due to lack of
consent, preventing a meeting of the
minds, that they disagreed on something or
they did not consent on to something, and
it has nothing to do with rescission
because rescission is a remedy which
presupposes a prior meeting of the minds
between the parties, it’s just that the other
failed to comply with the agreement in one
way or another; also, it has nothing to do
with reformation of instruments because
again, it presupposes a prior meeting of the
minds, and it’s just that the true intention
of the parties was not expressed in the
contract – the inactions caused here is
manifested in the act of stipulation, and
not manifested in vitiation of consent
[reformation of instruments may be done
through a petition for declaratory relief in
case there is no actual damage yet]).
Art. 1359. If mistake, fraud, inequitable
conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting
of the minds of the parties, the proper remedy
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
is not reformation of the instrument but
annulment of the contract.
Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished, among
others, by annulment (among the grounds of
which is mutual dissent or lack of consent,
others are found in Art. 1390, i.e., vitiation of
consent, or incapacity to give consent)
12. Where an application for a loan of money is
approved, there arises a perfected contract
even before the delivery of the object of the
contract.
A. TRUE.
Art. 1934. An accepted promise to deliver
something by way of commodatum or simple
loan (mutuum) is binding upon parties, but the
commodatum or simple loan itself shall not be
perfected until the delivery (the law really
contemplates consummation because of the
phrase “binding upon parties”) of the object of
the contract.
13. If the obligation has been substantially
performed, the obligor shall recover as though
there had been a strict and complement
fulfillment.
A. FALSE. Performance has to be in good faith.
Art. 1234 provides: If the obligation has
been substantially performed in good faith,
the obligor may recover as though there
had been a strict and complete fulfillment,
less damages suffered by the obligee.
14. When the obligee accepts the performance,
knowing its incompleteness or irregularity, the
obligation is deemed fully complied with. a.
FALSE. The acceptance must be without
expression of any protest or objection. Art.
1235. 15. Payment by a judgment debtor of the
wrong party does not extinguish judgment debt.
a. FALSE. This is only the general rule. The
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
following are its exceptions: i. Art. 1241 ii. Art.
1242 iii. Payment was delivered to the original
creditor other than the new creditor. 16.
Obligations requiring payment in foreign
currency must be discharged in Philippine
currency as provided by RA No. 8183. a. FALSE.
RA 8183 allows the payment in different
currency. In the absence of agreement,
payment should be made in Philippine Peso.
What the law specifically prohibits is the
payment in currency other than legal tender.
(Ponce v. CA) b. RA 529
17. An agreement to pay a promissory note in
dollars, while null and void under RA No. 529,
does not defeat a creditor’s claim. a. TRUE.
While an agreement to pay in foreign currency
is declared null and void and of no effect, the
law does not defeat a creditor’s claim for
payment because what the law specifically
prohibits is the payment in currency other than
legal tender. (Ponce v. CA) 18. A __________
implies that the check is drawn upon sufficient
funds in the hands of the drawee, that they
have been set apart for its satisfaction and that
they shall be so applied whenever the check is
presented for payment. a. Certification. 19. The
delivery of the promissory notes payable to
order, or bills of exchange or other mercantile
documents produces the effect of payment. a.
FALSE. Under Art. 1249, delivery of such
documents shall only produce the effect of
payment only when they have been cashed, or
when thorough the fault of the creditor, they
have been impaired. 20. The creditor cannot be
compelled to partially receive the prestation in
which the obligation consists. Neither may the
debtor be required to make partial payments. a.
FALSE. As a general rule, the creditor may not
be compelled to accept partial fulfillment. The
following are exceptions to this rule: (1)
substantial compliance in good faith, as
provided under Art. 1234; (2) waiver, as
provided under Art. 1235; or (3) application of
payments if the debts are equally onerous, as
provided in Art. 1254(2). 21. The fact that the
debtor had sufficient available funds on or
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
before the grace period for the payment of its
obligation does not constitute proof of tender
of payment. a. TRUE. Tender of payment
presupposes not only that the obligor is able,
but more so in the act of performing his
obligation. 22. A certified personal check is not
legal tender nor the currency stipulated and
therefore cannot constitute valid tender of
payment. a. FALSE. "Though a check is not legal
tender, and a creditor may validly refuse to
accept it if tendered as payment, one who in
fact accepted a fully funded check after the
debtor’s manifestation that it had been given to
settle an obligation is estopped from later on
denouncing the efficacy of such tender of
payment." (Far East Bank v. Diaz Realty, August
23, 2001.) 23. The rule that in case an
extraordinary inflation or deflation of the
currency stipulated should supervene, the value
of the currency at the time of the establishment
of the obligation shall be the basis of payment is
an applicable to obligations arising from tort.
a. FALSE. From the employment of the words
“extraordinary inflation or deflation of the
currency stipulated”, it can be seen that the
same envisages contractual obligations where a
specific currency is selected by the parties as
the medium of payment. Thus, this is
inapplicable to obligations arising from torts
and not from contracts. (Velasco v. MERALCO)
24. Under the principle of dation in payment,
the mere delivery of the mortgaged motor
vehicle by the mortgagor results in the transfer
of ownership to the mortgagee even without
the consent of the latter. a. FALSE. 25. There
can be no consignation when there is no
obligation to be extinguished. a. TRUE.
Consignation is the act of depositing the thing
due with the court or judicial authorities
whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses
to accept payment and it generally requires a
prior tender of payment. (Likako v. Tedoro) b. In
order that consignation may be effective, the
debtor must show that there was a debt due.
(De Leon v. Santiago Syjuco, Inc.) 26.
__________ is the act of depositing the thing
due with the court or judicial authorities
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses
to accept payment. a. Consignation. 27. Tender
of payment may be extrajudicial. a. FALSE.
According to Jurado, tender of payment is, by
nature, always extrajudicial. 28. Consignation of
the amount required is not necessary to
preserve the right to redeem. a. TRUE. The right
to redeem is a right, not an obligation. Thus,
consignation of the amount required is not
necessary to preserve the right to redeem.
(Immaculata v. Navarro) 29. Difficulty of service
authorizes release of obligor but does not
authorize courts to modify or revise the
contract between the parties. a. TRUE. Difficulty
of service authorizes the release of the obligor
but does not allow the courts to remake,
modify or revise the contract stipulated with
the force of law, so as to substitute its own
terms for those covenanted by the parties
themselves. (Occena v. Jabson) 30. Performance
is not excused by the fact that the contract
turns out to be hard and improvided(?),
unprofitable or unexpectedly burdensome. a.
TRUE. 31. Consent is an essential requisite of
obligation.
a. FALSE. It is not one of the essential elements
because there can be an obligation even
without the consent of one of the parties. 32. A
thing is indeterminate if it is not physically
segregated from all others of the same class. a.
FALSE. This statement is not absolute. A thing
may still be determinate even if not physically
segregated, as when the object is particularly
designated. 33. In obligations with a term, the
obligation arises upon the arrival of the period.
a. FALSE. The term or period has no effect upon
the existence of the obligation, but only their
demandability or performance. 34. In
obligations with a penal clause, the debtor may
exempt himself from the performance of the
obligation by paying the penalty. a. TRUE. The
debtor cannot pay the penalty to relieve himself
of the principal obligation, unless that right is
expressly granted to him. The payment of the
penalty in lieu of the principal obligation can be
made only by express stipulation. 35. The
insolvency of one debtor will increase the
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
liability of his co-debtors. a. FALSE. The
insolvency of a debtor does not increase the
responsibility of his codebtors, nor does it
authorize a creditor to demand anything from
his co-creditors. 36. The indivisibility of an
obligation necessarily gives rise to solidarity. a.
TRUE. Express provision. 37. Whenever a period
is designated in an obligation, it is for the
benefit of both the creditor and debtor. a.
FALSE. The rule under Art. 1196 is that the
period is presumed to have been established for
the benefit of both creditor and debtor, unless
from the same or other circumstances it should
appear that the period has been established in
favor of one or the other. 38. When the
fulfillment of the obligation is dependent upon
the sole will of the debtor, the conditional
obligation shall be void. a. FALSE. Art. 1182
provides that when the fulfillment of the
condition, not the obligation, is dependent
upon the sole will of the debtor, the conditional
obligation shall be void. i. Even if condition, if
condition is resolutory, obligation is not void.
39. In facultative obligations, the right of choice
belongs to the debtor unless it has been
expressly granted to the creditor.
a. FALSE. The power of the debtor to make
substitution is absolute. 40. Consignation, to be
valid, generally requires a prior tender of
payment. a. TRUE. As a rule tender of payment
is not necessary for a valid consignation; but it
is necessary if the consignation was made when
the creditor to whom tender of payment was
made refused to accept it. 41. Consignation of
the amount required is not necessary to
preserve the right to redeem. a. TRUE. Since the
right to redeem is a right, not an obligation,
consignation of the amount required is not
necessary to preserve the right to redeem.
(Immaculata v. Navarro) 42. Difficulty of service
authorizes release of obligor but does not
authorize courts to modify or revise he contract
between the parties. a. TRUE. Difficulty of
service authorizes the release of the obligor but
does not allow the courts to remake, modify or
revise the contract stipulated with the force of
law, so as to substitute its own terms for those
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
covenanted by the parties themselves. (Occena
v. Jabson) 43. It is a concept that derives from
the principle that since mutual agreement can
create a contract, mutual disagreement can
cause its extinguishment. a. TRUE. 44. Where an
application for a loan of money was approved,
there arises a perfected contract before the
delivery of the object of the contract. a. TRUE.
45. If the obligation has been substantially
performed, the obligor shall recover as though
there had been a strict and complete
fulfillment. a. FALSE. Performance has to be in
good faith and less damages suffered by the
obligee. Art. 1234 provides: If the obligation has
been substantially performed in good faith, the
obligor may recover as though there had been a
strict and complete fulfillment, less damages
suffered by the obligee. 46. When the obligee
accepts the performance knowing its
incompleteness or irregularity, the obligation is
deemed fully complied with. a. FALSE. The
acceptance has to be without expressing any
protest or objection. 47. Payment by a
judgment debtor to the wrong party does not
extinguish judgment debt. a. FALSE. This is only
the general rule. The following are its
exceptions: i. Art. 1241 ii. Art. 1242
b. Payment was delivered to the original
creditor other than the new creditor. 48.
Obligations requiring payment in foreign
currency must be discharged in Philippine
currency as provided by RA 8183. a. FALSE. RA
8183 allows the payment in different currency.
In the absence of agreement, payment should
be made in Philippine Peso. What the law
specifically prohibits is the payment in currency
other than legal tender. (Ponce v. CA) b. RA 529
49. An agreement to pay a promissory note in
dollars, while null and void under RA 529 does
not defeat a creditor’s claim. a. TRUE. While an
agreement to pay in foreign currency is
declared null and void and of no effect, the law
does not defeat a creditor’s claim for payment
because what the law specifically prohibits is
the payment in currency other than legal
tender. (Ponce v. CA) 50. Consignation
presupposes not only that the obligor is able,
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
ready, and willing to pay, but mores so in the
act of performing his obligation. a. TRUE. 51. “A
proof that an act could have been done is no
proof that it was actually done” supports the
concept known as tender of payment. a. FALSE.
Tender of payment presupposes not only that
the obligor is able, but more so in the act of
performing his obligation. 52. A certified
personal check is not the legal tender nor the
currency contemplated, therefore cannot
constitute valid tender of payment. a. FALSE.
"Though a check is not legal tender, and a
creditor may validly refuse to accept it if
tendered as payment, one who in fact accepted
a fully funded check after the debtor’s
manifestation that it had been given to settle an
obligation is estopped from later on denouncing
the efficacy of such tender of payment." (Far
East Bank v. Diaz Realty, August 23, 2001) 53.
The rule that in case of extraordinary inflation
or deflation of the currency stipulated should
supervene, the value of the currency at the time
of the establishment of the obligation shall be
the basis of payment of obligations arising from
law. a. FALSE. From the employment of the
words “extraordinary inflation or deflation of
the currency stipulated”, it can be seen that the
same envisages contractual obligations where a
specific currency is selected by the parties as
the medium of payment. Thus, this is
inapplicable to obligations arising from tots and
not from contracts. (Velasco v. MERALCO)
54. Under the principle of dation in payment,
what is transferred is merely possession of the
property. (ownership) a. FALSE. Dation in
payment is the delivery and transmission of
ownership of a thing by the debtor to the
creditor as an accepted equivalent of the
performance of the obligation. (Filinvest v. Phil.
Acetylene) 55. There can be no dation in
payment when there is no obligation
extinguished. a. TRUE. Dation in payment is the
delivery and transmission of ownership of a
thing by the debtor to the creditor as an
accepted equivalent of the performance of the
obligation. (Filinvest v. Phil. Acetylene) 56.
Tender of payment may be extrajudicial. a.
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
FALSE. 57. Consignation is necessarily judicial. a.
TRUE. Art. 1258, “deposit to judicial
authorities.” b. It is judicial for it requires the
filing of a complaint in court. 58. Demand is
necessary to make an obligation due. a. FALSE.
Demand is not necessary to make an obligation
due but to set the other party in delay and to
effectively toll applicable prescriptive periods.
b. As to when an obligation becomes due is not
dependent on the existence of demand in a
pure obligation. Every obligation the
performance of which does not depend on a
future or uncertain event, or a past event
unknown to the parties, is demandable at once.
The same is true in obligations with resolutory
condition or a resolutory period, without
prejudice to the effects of the happening of the
condition or the arrival of the period. c. Also, in
a reciprocal and simultaneous obligation, from
the moment one of the parties fulfil his
obligation, the other party must be ready to
comply with what is incumbent upon him, or
else delay will set in without the necessity of a
demand. i. However, in a reciprocal obligation
which is not simultaneous, demand is generally
necessary, again not to make the obligation due
but for delay to set in upon the party who is not
able to comply in the proper manner with what
is incumbent upon him. d. Further, demand is
made only upon the obligation becoming due. A
demand made upon an obligation that is not yet
due and demandable will not set the other
party in delay. Thus, demand is futile. e. There
are other instances when demand is not
necessary as to when the obligation becomes
due, as in: i. when the law or the obligation
expressly so declares, as for example, in a pure
obligation and those subject to a resolutory
condition or period, which are due and
demandable at once;
ii. when from the nature and circumstances of
the obligation it appears that the designation of
the time of fulfilment is the controlling motive
of the establishment of the contract; and iii.
when demand would be useless, as when the
obligor has rendered it beyond his power to
perform. 59. The arrival of a period or the
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
happening of a condition gives rise to an
obligation. a. FALSE. This statement is true only
as regards obligations subject to a suspensive
condition or suspensive period, wherein the
efficacy of the obligation is suspended until the
happening of the suspensive condition or the
arrival of the suspensive period. b. First, there
could be an obligation which is not dependent
upon any future or uncertain event. A pure
obligation is demandable at once upon
constitution. The same is true in obligations
subject to a resolutory condition or resolutory
period, without prejudice to the effects of the
happening of the condition or the arrival of the
period, which extinguishes the obligation. 60.
No person shall be responsible for those events
which could not be foreseen, or which though
foreseen, were inevitable. a. FALSE. This
statement is generally true, but the civil code
admits of exceptions. b. First, in an obligation to
give, the statement is true only when what is to
be delivered is a determinate thing. If it was a
generic thing, the obligation will not necessarily
be extinguished by the happening of a
fortuitous event, because of the principle that
genus never perishes. c. The exceptions to this
rule as provided by the civil code include, when
the parties expressly so stipulates the person to
be responsible even for fortuitous events; or
when the law so provides; or when the nature
of the obligation requires the assumption of
risks; or when the obligor is in delay upon the
happening of the fortuitous event; or when he
has promised to deliver the same thing to two
or more persons who do not have the same
interest, then the statement will not necessarily
be true anymore. 61. The value of the currency
at the time of the constitution of the obligation
shall be the basis of payment in case of
extraordinary inflation or deflation. a. FALSE.
This statement will only be true as regards
obligations arising from contracts, in case an
extraordinary inflation or deflation of the
currency stipulated should supervene. The
same provision already has an exception, where
the parties agree on the contrary. The provision
speaks of parties and of agreement, thereby
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
presupposing that a contract was entered into
between them. In obligations arising from law,
quasi-contracts, delicts and quasi-delicts, the
applicable law or statutes should govern.
1. Consent is an essential requisite of
obligations. a. FALSE. Not all obligations require
consent; only contracts require consent. 2. A
thing is indeterminate if it is not physically
segregated from all others of the same class. a.
FALSE. This statement is not absolute. A thing
may still be determinate even if not physically
segregated, as when the object is particularly
designated. 3. In obligations with a term, the
obligation arises upon the arrival of the period.
a. FALSE. The term or period has no effect upon
the existence of the obligation, but only their
demandability or performance. b. The effect of
arrival of a period only goes into the
demandability. 4. In obligations with a penal
clause, the debtor cannot exempt himself from
the performance of the obligation by paying the
penalty. a. FALSE. This must be expressly
granted to the debtor. 5. In obligations with a
penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the
indemnity for damages and the payment of
interest. a. FALSE. The statement is not
absolute; an exception is if there was an
agreement. 6. The insolvency of one debtor will
increase the liability of his co-debtors. a. FALSE.
This does not apply in obligations where the
debtors are joint. 7. The indivisibility of an
obligation does not necessarily give rise to
solidarity. a. TRUE. Express provision. 8.
Whenever a period is designated in an
obligation, it is for the benefit of both the
creditor and the debtor. a. FALSE. This is a
disputable presumption. b. The rule under Art.
1196 is that the period is presumed to have
been established for the benefit of both
creditor and debtor, unless from the same or
other circumstances it should appear that the
period has been established in favor of one or
the other. 9. When the fulfillment of the
condition depends upon the sole will of the
debtor, the conditional obligation shall be void.
a. FALSE. This will only apply if the condition is
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!) Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers

suspensive. If the condition is resolutory, the

obligation shall be deemed valid
10. In facultative obligations, the right of choice
belongs to the debtor, unless it has been
expressly granted to the creditor. a. FALSE. The
choice only belongs to the debtor. The power of
the debtor to make substitution in facultative
obligations is absolute.
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
LAWS ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
1. The defense of a good father of a family is a
complete and proper defense in delict.
a. FALSE, The invocation of the accused of
Article 2203 providing that the party suffering
loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a
good father of a family to minimize the
damages resulting from the act or omission in
question” would not exonerate him of the civil
liability of actual or compensatory damage. It
will only lessen the amount of damage if,
indeed, the injured party failed to exercise due
diligence of a good father in minimizing the
damage.
Take note that the accused, in this sense, will
not use the defense of due diligence for himself
saying that he exercised the same during his act
or omission since it would be absurd (there is
no diligence in commission of a crime, if any
then it would be the clandestine making
thereof); rather, he will use it as a contention
against the injured party, that the latter failed
to exercise the same.
The defense of due diligence in the selection
and supervision of employees is also not
available as a defense in damage action based
on culpa-contractual.
2. A willful act may be the basis of a liability
under a quasi-delict.
a. FALSE if "any willful act"; TRUE if "A willful
act"
What willful act? It is GROSS NEGLIGENCE or the
willful disregard of the safety of others. Found
under the law on common carriers on Article
1758 - When a passenger is carried gratuitously,
a stipulation limiting the common carrier's
liability for negligence is valid, but not for willful
acts or gross negligence.
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
The willful act of the employee shall cause
vicarious liability on the employer although
such employees may have acted beyond the
scope of their authority or even in violation of
the instructions of the carrier, if the act resulted
to death of others (e.g. in contracts of common
carrier).
Art. 2180 The obligation imposed by Article
2176 (obligation arising from quasi-delict) is
demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible.
3. The liability of the employer for the acts of
its employees is a subsidiary liability.
a. FALSE, (See Art. 2180) an action predicated
on quasi-delict means that the employer’s
liability for the negligent conduct of the
subordinate is direct and primary.
(vicarious/imputed, solidary)
4. Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, only if they (the employers) are
engaged in any business or industry.
a. FALSE, employers are liable even though they
are not engaged in any business or industry.
(Art. 2180, par. 4)
5. It is conclusively presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at
least twice within the next preceding two
months.
a. FALSE, the negligence of the driver is only a
disputable presumption with regard to his
previous guilt. (Art. 2184)
Also, Rule 131, Section 3 on disputable
presumptions. What I’m trying to tell is said rule
is not exclusively enumerated.
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
6. Respondeat superior applies to vicarious
liability of employers.
a. FALSE, not always. PUTANGINA MAGULO TO
MGA BRODI EH KAYO NA BAHALA DITO
Respondeat superior doctrine is a kind of
vicarious liability. It holds an employer or
principal principally liable for his employee’s or
agent’s wrongful acts committed in furtherance
of the employer’s interest. In some instances,
vicarious liability attaches even if the employee
acted outside of its duties, i.e. in contracts of
common carriers.
A derivative of this provision is Article 2180, the
rule governing vicarious liability under the
doctrine of respondeat superior
On the liability of the other respondents, the
Court of Appeals applied the "borrowed
servant" doctrine considering that Dr. Estrada
was an independent contractor who was merely
exercising hospital privileges. This doctrine
provides that once the surgeon enters the
operating room and takes charge of the
proceedings, the acts or omissions of operating
room personnel, and any negligence associated
with such acts or omissions, are imputable to
the surgeon. While the assisting physicians and
nurses may be employed by the hospital, or
engaged by the patient, they normally become
the temporary servants or agents of the
surgeon in charge while the operation is in
progress, and liability may be imposed upon the
surgeon for their negligent acts under the
doctrine of respondeat superior.
No longer were a hospital’s functions limited to
furnishing room, food, facilities for treatment
and operation, and attendants for its patients.
Modern hospitals actually do far more than
provide facilities for treatment. Rather, they
regularly employ, on a salaried basis, a large
staff of physicians, interns, nurses,
administrative and manual workers. They
charge patients for medical care and treatment,
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
even collecting for such services through legal
action, if necessary. The court then concluded
that there is no reason to exempt hospitals
from the universal rule of respondeat superior.
Recent years have seen the doctrine of
corporate negligence as the judicial answer to
the problem of allocating hospital’s liability for
the negligent acts of health practitioners,
absent facts to support the application of
respondeat superior or apparent authority. Its
formulation proceeds from the judiciary’s
acknowledgment that in these modern times,
the duty of providing quality medical service is
no longer the sole prerogative and
responsibility of the physician. The modern
hospitals have changed structure. Hospitals
now tend to organize a highly professional
medical staff whose competence and
performance need to be monitored by the
hospitals commensurate with their inherent
responsibility to provide quality medical care.
Li was authorized by the company to use the
company car "either officially or socially or even
bring it home", he can be considered as using
the company car in the service of his employer
or on the occasion of his functions. Driving the
company car was not among his functions as
assistant manager; using it for non-official
purposes would appear to be a fringe benefit,
one of the perks attached to his position. But to
impose liability upon the employer under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code, earlier quoted,
there must be a showing that the damage was
caused by their employees in the service of the
employer or on the occasion of their functions.
There is no evidence that Richard Li was at the
time of the accident performing any act in
furtherance of the company's business or its
interests, or at least for its benefit. The
imposition of solidary liability against defendant
Alexander Commercial Corporation must
therefore fail. We agree with the respondent
court that the relationship in question is not
based on the principle of respondeat superior,
which holds the master liable for acts of the
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
servant, but that of pater familias, in which the
liability ultimately falls upon the employer, for
his failure to exercise the diligence of a good
father of the family in the selection and
supervision of his employees. It is up to this
point, however, that our agreement with the
respondent court ends. Utilizing the bonus
pater familias standard expressed in Article
2180 of the Civil Code, an employer is jointly
and solidarily liable for the damage caused by
an accident.
So titignan mo san ba liable si employer, sa
employee’s act in furtherance of his interest ba,
sa selection and supervision of employees ba,
kung may company oversight ba when it comes
to quality management.
IBA YUNG SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY.. ETO PO YUNG
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY MGA BRODDIE.. SA CRIM
YAN SA CRIM.. PAG DELICT ANG
PINAGUUSAPAN SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY ANG
TAWAG HA?
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers,
tavernkeepers and proprietors of
establishments. — In default of the persons
criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers,
and any other persons or corporations shall be
civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation of
municipal ordinances or some general or special
police regulation shall have been committed by
them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the
restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft
within their houses from guests lodging therein,
or for the payment of the value thereof,
provided that such guests shall have notified in
advance the innkeeper himself, or the person
representing him, of the deposit of such goods
within the inn; and shall furthermore have
followed the directions which such innkeeper or
his representative may have given them with
respect to the care and vigilance over such
goods. No liability shall attach in case of
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons unless committed by the innkeeper's
employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other
persons. — The subsidiary liability established
in the next preceding article shall also apply to
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of
their duties.
Before the employers subsidiary liability is
enforced, adequate evidence must exist
establishing that (1) they are indeed the
employers of the convicted employees; (2) they
are engaged in some kind of industry; (3) the
crime was committed by the employees in the
discharge of their duties; and (4) the execution
against the latter has not been satisfied due to
insolvency. The determination of these
conditions may be done in the same criminal
action in which the employees liability, criminal
and civil, has been pronounced, in a hearing set
for that precise purpose, with due notice to the
employer, as part of the proceedings for the
execution of the judgment.
TANGINA YUNG NASA CIVIL CODE PANG QUASI-
DELICT YUN AH! Sa QUASI DELICT
SOLIDARY/VICARIOUS/IMPUTED/PRINCIPAL ang
liability okay? WALA TAYONG PAGUUSAPAN NA
INSOLVENCY SA QUASI-DELICT HAAAHH??
IBA PA YUNG TAKE SA DAMAGES HA KASI
GENERAL UNG DAMAGE GENERAL YON,
APPLYING SA LAHAT NG OBLIGATION YON.
KAYA PAG NALILITO KA SAMPALIN MO SARILI
MO. PAG NAGAARAL KA NG CAUSE OF ACTION.
WAG MO MUNA IDAMAY SI DAMAGE, AWARD
YUN AWARD, HINDI YON CAUSE. SI INJURY UNG
CAUSE HNDI SI DAMAGE. PAALALA MO SA
SARILI MO NA SI INJURY MUNA GUSTO MO
PAGARALAN DI SI DAMAGE okee? Okay!
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
7. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver, if he was inside
the vehicle at the time of the mishap.
a. FALSE, owner must have had the
opportunity, by use of due diligence, to prevent
the misfortune.
Eto lang yung may presumption of negligence
sa culpa-aquiliana.
Etong mga nasa quasi-delict, ano to eh…
LAGING CIRCUMCIANSSIAL. LAGING NATUTULE!
Laging circumstantial mga broddie. Bakit?
Bakit? Kasi sa HUMAN RELATION EHH.. taena
catch all catch all principle ehh.. ayaw magkaron
ng legislative vacuum eh, kaya bahala si korte
mag interpret. Abogado pa more!
8. In quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable
for all damages which are the natural and
probable consequences of the act or omission
complained of.
a. TRUE, Art. 2202. In crimes as well. Dameng
hanash ng mga tanungan eh noh? Mastery ba
mastery.
9. The father, and in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by their children who live in
their company.
a. FALSE, minor children dapat, Art. 2180, par2
10. Moderate damages, which are more than
nominal but less than compensatory damages,
may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its
amount cannot, from the nature of the case,
be provided with certainty.
a. FALSE, “proved” not provided, Art. 2224
typo error lang. tangina pati ba naman to. Alam
mo broddie, may mga bagay na akala mo ay
kaartehan lamang, pero importante tlaga yan.
Mastery ba.
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
1. As a source of obligations, quasi-delicts may
be distinguished from the delict in that, in
delict:
a. Proof requires is only preponderance of
evidence
b. Right violated is a private one
c. There must be no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties
d. The defense of “good father of a family” is
not a proper defense
BALIK KA DON! BALIK KA DON sa T or F sa 1st
question. Hindi talaga defense yan. Yung
accused-defendant yung nag iimpute sa injured
party-plaintiff nyan.
2. the following are required to exercise
utmost diligence or the highest degree of
diligence, except:
a. Stevedoring companies
b. Doctors
c. Banks
d. Public utilities
e. None of the Above – KAGAGUHAN! (well
tignan mo yung tanong. D nmn ksi tinatanong
kung sino required to exercise utmost
diligence. Ang dating eh, lahat daw sila
required to exercise utmost diligence. Wrong
yung question pero kelangan mo sagutan.
Baka ka ma DQ broddie. So tingin ka sa baba)
The business of banking is one imbued with
public interest. As such, banking institutions are
obliged to exercise the highest degree of
diligence as well as high standards of integrity
and performance in all its transactions (i-SERGE
MO!)
Public Utilities must exercise extraordinary
diligence. Common carriers are public utilities.
Utmost diligence not required.
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
The relationship therefore between the
consignee and the arrastre operator must be
examined. This relationship is much akin to that
existing between the consignee or owner of
shipped goods and the common carrier, or that
between a depositor and a warehouseman. In
the performance of its obligations, an arrastre
operator should observe the same degree of
diligence as that required of a common carrier
and a warehouseman as enunciated under
Article 1733 of the Civil Code and Section 3(b)
of the Warehouse Receipts Law, respectively.
Being the custodian of the goods discharged
from a vessel, an arrastre operator's duty is to
take good care of the goods and to turn them
over to the party entitled to their possession.
The public policy considerations in legally
imposing upon a common carrier or a
warehouseman a higher degree of diligence is
not present in a stevedoring outfit which mainly
provides labor in loading and stowing of cargoes
for its clients. There is no specific provision of
law that imposes a higher degree of diligence
than ordinary diligence for a stevedoring
company or one who is charged only with the
loading and stowing of cargoes.
Sa doctors naman, eto ang malupit
pukinanginey… The standard contemplated for
doctors is simply the reasonable average merit
among ordinarily good physicians. That is
reasonable diligence for doctors or, as the Court
of Appeals called it, the reasonable "skill and
competence . . . that a physician in the same or
similar locality . . . should apply." Tengina diba?
It is clear that the standard of care required of
physicians is not an individualized one but of
physicians in general in the community. In order
to establish medical malpractice, it must be
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
a physician did some particular thing or things
that a physician or surgeon of ordinary skill,
care and diligence would not have done under
like or similar conditions or circumstances, or
that he failed or omitted to do some particular
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
thing or things that a physician or surgeon of
ordinary skill, care and diligence would have
done under like or similar conditions or
circumstances, and that the inquiry complained
of was the direct result of such doing or failing
to do such thing or things.
SO SA PHYSICIANS, KELANGAN MO NG EXPERT
OPINION NG KABARO NILA. IN ESSENCE,
VARIABLE ANG DILIGENCE REQUIRED SA
PHYSICIAN. DEPENDE SA LUGAR, KUMBAGA
MGA DOKTOR SA BARIO IBA SA DOKTOR SA
KAMAYNILAAN. PRIVATE, PUBLIC, MGA
MALALAKING HOSPITAL ST. LUKES GANON..
HNDI TLGA HIGHEST DEGREE AGAD AGAD.
FOR NURSES: a higher degree of caution and an
exacting standard of diligence in patient
management and health care are required of a
hospital's staff (para sa nurses and other staff,
not doctors), as they deal with the lives of
patients who seek urgent medical assistance. A
certain degree of promptness and diligence in
responding to the patient's call for help is
required. Once negligence of the employee is
shown, the burden is on the employer (hospital)
to overcome the presumption of negligence on
the latter's part by proving observance of the
required diligence.
3. A conclusive presumption of negligence
arises when:
a. An animal causes damage
b. A thing thrown from a building causes
damage to another
c. The driver involved in a vehicular mishap had
been found guilty of violating traffic regulations
at least twice within the next preceding two
months – PRIOR ACTS NOT CONCLUSIVE ON
THE CURRENT ACT
d. The driver, at the time of the mishap, was
violating any traffic regulation
e. None of the above
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE is the failure to take
the reasonable precautions that any prudent
person would take and their actions cause
someone else harm, their actions could be
considered negligent.
Gross negligence is the extreme indifference to
or reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Gross negligence is more than simple
carelessness or failure to act. It is willful
behavior done with extreme disregard for the
health and safety of others. It is conduct likely
to cause foreseeable harm.
HOW DO YOU PROVE NEGLIGENCE?
If you have been hurt in an accident caused by
someone else’s negligent actions, you will have
to prove the presence of four main elements,
including:
DUTY – The defendant owed the injured party a
legal duty to take reasonable precautions to
protect him or her from harm under the
circumstances.
BREACH – That legal duty was breached by the
actions of the defendant.
CAUSATION – The actions, or in some cases
inaction, of the defendant directly caused injury
to the plaintiff.
DAMAGES – The plaintiff was harmed by the
actions of the defendant.
YOU PROVE NEGLIGENCE in QUASI DELICT..
plaintiff proves existence of negligence of the
faulty party, or of the employee. If proven, then
the faulty party or the employer may rebut by
showing of diligence
WELL WELL WELL, punta na tayo ditto sa
conclusive negligence or NEGLIGENCE PER SE..
in negligence per se, di mo na kelangan mag
prove ng negligence. Conclusive nga eh… kelan
meron ganito? Eto..
The provisions of Article 2189 of the New Civil
Code capsulizes the responsibility of the city
government relative to the maintenance of
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
roads and bridges since it exercises the control
and supervision over the same. Failure of the
defendant to comply with the statutory
provision found in the subject-article is
tantamount to negligence per se which renders
the City government liable.
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities
shall be liable for damages for the death of, or
injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the
defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under
their control or supervision.
Etong susunod, hindi to negligence per se kasi
disputable pa rin..
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or
structure is responsible for the damages
resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it
should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
Dapat may lack of necessary repairs.
Eto pa isa, violation ng traffic rules at city
ordinance.. pero take note, doon lang sa
particular act n yon.. hndi subsequent acts.
Sa culpa-contractual naman, the fault or
negligence of the employee is conclusively
presumed to be the fault or negligence of the
employer, if pasok ditto sa mga instance na to:
1. Where the mishap results in the death of a
passenger.
2. Where it is proved that the carrier was guilty
of fraud or bad faith, even if death does not
result.
If hindi pasok sa dalawang instance na to,
disputable presumption yung negligence. Ang
kaibahan, in conclusive presumption, di ka na
pwede magsabe na nag exercise ka ng due
diligence para mafulfill ung contract.
Again, yung negligence na pnpressume sa culpa-
contractual eh yung negligence in the
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
performance of contract, hindi selection of
employee. Wala kinalaman dito yan.
Kung titignan mo, gross negligence ng employee
yan. Again, in all instance, kahit sa quasi-delict,
pag gross ang negligence, conclusive ang
negligence.
4. The degree of diligence that should
ordinarily be observed in the absence of a
stipulation to the contrary is:
a. Extra ordinary diligence
b. Diligence of bonus paterfamilias
c. Utmost diligence
d. Highest degree of diligence
e. None
bonus pater familias is the latin term for
diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of employees
5. The following may be held liable under
quasi-delict, except:
a. Minors (and insane)
b. Appointive officials of the government
c. Private corporations
d. All of the above
e. None of the above
liable lang si minor and insane kapag wala n
syang parents or guardians. Pag ulila na.
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing
damage has no parents or guardian, the minor
or insane person shall be answerable with his
own property in an action against him where a
guardian ad litem shall be appointed.
6. The liability of this person is a vicarious
liability
a. Minors
b. Incapacitated persons
c. State
d. Human Resource Manager of a corporation
e. None
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
si HR Manager, employee lang din yan. Di pde
Respondeat superior jan.
eto mga vicariously liable:
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article
2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live
in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment
or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks, even though the former are not engaged
in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it
acts through a special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to
whom the task done properly pertains; in which
case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be
applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of
arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they remain in their
custody.
7. Where both parties are negligent, but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later in time
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
than that of the other, or when it is impossible
to determine whose fault or negligence should
be attributed to the incident, the one who had
the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so is
chargeable with the consequences thereof.
This doctrine is NOT the:
a. Doctrine of supervening negligence
b. Doctrine of last clear chance
c. Doctrine of last fair chance
d. Doctrine of discovered peril
e. Doctrine of concurrent causes
Doctrine of discovered peril - The rule states
that a plaintiff who was contributory negligent
may recover from a defendant if the defendant
had the last opportunity to prevent the harm
but failed to use reasonable care to do so. The
doctrine aids a plaintiff to rebut the
contributory negligence defense in those few
jurisdictions where contributory negligence bars
recovery. It is also known as last clear chance
doctrine, subsequent negligence doctrine or
supervening negligence doctrine; also last fair
chance.
Under the doctrine of "last clear chance" (also
referred to, at times as "supervening
negligence" or as "discovered peril"), petitioner
bank was indeed the culpable party.
Stated differently, the rule would also mean
that an antecedent negligence of a person does
not preclude the recovery of damages for the
supervening negligence of, or bar a defense
against liability sought by another, if the latter,
who had the last fair chance, could have
avoided the impending harm by the exercise of
due diligence. (Philippine Bank of Commerce v.
CA)
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence
was the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the
immediate and proximate cause of the injury
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
being the defendant's lack of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory
negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the
damages that he may recover.
Art. 1762. The contributory negligence of the
passenger does not bar recovery of damages for
his death or injuries, if the proximate cause
thereof is the negligence of the common
carrier, but the amount of damages shall be
equitably reduced.
8. This is only a partial defense
a. No causal relationship between the act and
the damage
b. Damnum absque injuria
c. Double recovery
d. Contributory negligence
e. None
see above
9. Proof of pecuniary loss is required for the
award of:
a. Lucro cessante
b. Temperate
c. Exemplary damages
d. Nominal
e. None
Lucro cessante means lost profits. It is an award
in addition to actual or compensatory damages
under 2200.
Indemnification for actual or compensatory
damages shall comprehend not only the value
of the loss suffered but also that of the profits
which the obligee failed to obtain. (Art. 2200)
Pecuniary loss suffered by one entitled to actual
or compensatory damages must be duly
proved. (Art. 2199)
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
10. In case of death caused by a quasi-delict,
the following may be awarded moral damages
except:
a. Spouse
b. Father
c. Grandmother
d. Illegitimate child
e. None
Actual and Compensatory Damage ang meron.
Quasi delicts causing physical injuries lang ang
pwede maconsider, not death.
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death
caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at
least three thousand pesos, even though there
may have been mitigating circumstances. In
addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of
the earning capacity of the deceased, and the
indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the
latter; such indemnity shall in every case be
assessed and awarded by the court, unless the
deceased on account of permanent physical
disability not caused by the defendant, had no
earning capacity at the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support
according to the provisions of Article 291, the
recipient who is not an heir called to the
decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support from
the person causing the death, for a period not
exceeding five years, the exact duration to be
fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
descendants and ascendants of the deceased
may demand moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
In culpa-contractual, the following are only
instances where moral damages are
recoverable:
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
1. Where the mishap results in the death of a
passenger.
2. Where it is proved that the carrier was guilty
of fraud or bad faith, even if death does not
result.
TRUE OR FALSE
1. The defense of a good father of a family is a
complete and proper defense in delict.
a. FALSE. It is a defense in quasi-delict.
b. The liability of an employer when the source
of the liability is culpa criminal is:
Subsidiary (Art. 103, RPC) and he cannot relieve
himself of liability by proving due diligence of a
good father of a family. This is so because of the
very nature of his obligation. (Jurado)
The defense of due diligence in the selection
and supervision of employees is not available as
a defense in damage action based on culpa-
contractual
2. A willful act may be the basis of a liability
under quasi-delict.
a. TRUE. The concept (of a quasi-delict) covers
not only acts not punishable by law but
also those punishable “whether intentional
and voluntary or negligent. (Elcano v. Hill)
Gross negligence is intentional disregard of the
safety of others. Also, in criminal cases where in
the accused was not proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt:
Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or
negligencia covers not only acts "not punishable
by law" but also acts criminal in character,
whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.
Consequently, a separate civil action lies against
the offender in a criminal act, whether or not
he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or
acquitted, provided that the offended party is
not allowed, if he is actually charged also
criminally, to recover damages on both scores,
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
and would be entitled in such eventuality only
to the bigger award of the two, assuming the
awards made in the two cases vary.
In other words, the extinction of civil liability
referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111,
refers exclusively to civil liability founded on
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas
the civil liability for the same act considered as
a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not
extinguished even by a declaration in the
criminal case that the criminal act charged has
not happened or has not been committed by
the accused. Briefly stated, we here hold, in
reiteration of Garcia, that culpa aquiliana
includes voluntary and negligent acts which
may be punishable by law.
CULPA is ikaw.. joke. CULPA is FAULT.. FAULT is
NEGLIGENCE.
CULPA CRIMINAL is CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.
These are negligent acts or omissions
punishable by law. if the act punishable by law
is not borne by negligence or fault, then it might
be by deceit or dolo. it is DOLO CRIMINAL, it is
an intentional or willful crime. Whether culpa
criminal or dolo criminal, both are delict.
CULPA AQUILANA is FAULT OUTSIDE OF
CONTRACT – EXTRACONTRACTUAL
NEGLIGENCE. It contemplates intentional and
voluntary (gross negligence) and faulty acts or
omission, not punishable by law, which causes
injury to another in the absence of a contract.
CULPA CONTRACTUAL is an act or omission
negligence in the performance of contract. It is
breach of contractual obligation; in the sense
that it is incidental during the performance of
the obligation. Like magdedeliver ka sana ng
paso, lagpas na sa dedline. Nagmamadali ka, eh
nadulas ka, nabasag yung paso.. yan culpa ka.
Culpa contractual yan
Culpa contractual IS NOT QUASI-CONTRACT! Iba
yon!
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
Note: sa contract of carriage, ang due diligence
depende kng may public interest. Pag private
carriage, ordinary diligence lang; pag common
carriage, extraordinary diligence
3. The liability of the employer for the acts of
its employees is a subsidiary liability.
a. FALSE. It depends on the source of the
obligation:
i. if culpa aquiliana and culpa contractual, it is
direct and primary – specifically kapag
aquiliana, vicarious liability/ imputed liability/
solidary liability/ apparent liability;
ii. if culpa criminal, it is subsidiary. (Jurado)
4. Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, only if they are engaged in any
business or industry.
a. FALSE. Art. 2180 provides that employers
shall be liable even though they are not
engaged in any business or industry.
5. It is conclusively presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations
at least twice within the next preceding two
months.
a. FALSE. The presumption is disputable. (Art.
2184)
6. Respondeat superior applies to the vicarious
liability of employers.
a. FALSE.
b. The doctrine of imputed negligence or
vicarious liability is not the same with
respondeat superior.
i. The doctrine of respondeat superior (“let the
superior make answer”) holds an employer or
principal principally liable for the employee’s or
agent’s wrongful acts committed within the
scope of employment or agency or in pursuance
of the principal’s interest. Respondeat superior
is applicable only in employment or agency and
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
in partnership wherein the partner acts as the
agent for the partnership WITH REGARD TO
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. Wherein the
negligent contemplated is the failure to make
the terms of the contracts due to the
negligence of the employee or agent.
Vicarious liability applies to QUASI DELICT.
In that regard, this Court finds it significant to
take note of the following differences between
quasi-delict (culpa aquilina) and breach of
contract (culpa contractual). In quasi-delict,
negligence is direct, substantive and
independent, while in breach of contract,
negligence is merely incidental to the
performance of the contractual obligation;
there is a pre-existing contract or obligation. In
quasi-delict, the defense of "good father of a
family" is a complete and proper defense
insofar as parents, guardians and employers are
concerned, while in breach of contract, such is
not a complete and proper defense in the
selection and supervision of employees.76 In
quasi- delict , there is no presumption of
negligence and it is incumbent upon the injured
party to prove the negligence of the defendant,
otherwise, the former’s complaint will be
dismissed, while in breach of contract,
negligence is presumed so long as it can be
proved that there was breach of the contract
and the burden is on the defendant to prove
that there was no negligence in the carrying
out of the terms of the contract; the rule of
respondeat superior is followed
In quasi-delict, the liability of the employer for
the negligent conduct of the subordinate is
direct and primary subject to the defense of
due diligence in the selection and supervision of
the employee.
7. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver, if he was inside
the vehicle at the time of the mishap.
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
a. FALSE. The owner will only be solidarily
liable, if while he was in the vehicle during the
motor vehicle mishap, he could have, by the use
of due diligence, prevented the misfortune.
(Art. 2184)
eto lang yata ang instance na may disputable
presumption sa culpa-aquiliana
8. In quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable
for all damages which are the natural and
probable consequences of the act or omission
complained of.
a. TRUE. Art. 2202
i. Alternative answer: FALSE, because this only
applies for actual or compensatory damages.
Well, yang 2202 under yan ng actual or
compensatory damages. Yung ALL DAMAGES na
tinutukoy jan is actual or compensatory damage
plus loss of profits (lucro cessante)
9. The father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by their children who live in
their company.
a. FALSE. Art. 2180 provides that the father or
the mother is responsible for the damages
caused by their minor children who live in their
company.
b. Art. 221 of the Family Code provides that
parents and other persons exercising parental
authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries
and damages caused by the acts or omissions of
their unemancipated children living in their
company and under their parental authority,
subject to appropriate defenses provided by
law.
10. Moderate damages, which are more than
nominal but less than compensatory damages,
may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!) Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers

amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be

provided with certainty.

a. FALSE. Art. 2224 provides that moderate

damages may be recovered when the court
finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature
of the case, be proved with certainty.

Additional… since hindi natanong…

Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase which literally

means "the thing or the transaction speaks for
itself." It relates to the fact of an injury that sets
out an inference to the cause thereof or
establishes the plaintiff’s prima facie case. The
doctrine rests on inference and not on
presumption. The facts of the occurrence
warrant the supposition of negligence and they
furnish circumstantial evidence of negligence
when direct evidence is lacking. Simply stated,
this doctrine finds no application if there is
direct proof of absence or presence of
negligence. If there is sufficient proof showing
the conditions and circumstances under which
the injury occurred, then the creative reason for
the said doctrine disappears. (PARA TONG
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE.. in the
absence of direct evidence, ganon..)

Further, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies

where, (1) the accident was of such character as
to warrant an inference that it would not have
happened except for the defendant’s
negligence (in tagalong, hindi sana nangyari yon
kundi dahil sa kanyang katangahan); (2) the
accident must have been caused by an agency
or instrumentality within the exclusive
management or control of the person charged
with the negligence complained of (in tagalong,
bukod tanging siya lang ang may kakayahang
gumawa ng katangahan na yaon); and (3) the
accident must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part of
the person injured (in tagalong, dapat never
naging tanga yong nasaktan).
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
LAWS ON AGENCY
TRUE OR FALSE
1. Notice of the revocation in a newspaper of a
general circulation is a sufficient warning to
third persons.
a. TRUE, Art. 1922.
b. FALSE, only true if the agent had general
powers for it won’t prejudice 3rd persons who
were not personally served of the notification
of revocation.
Art. 1922. If the agent had general powers,
revocation of the agency does not prejudice
third persons who acted in good faith and
without knowledge of the revocation. Notice of
the revocation in a newspaper of general
circulation is a sufficient warning to third
persons.
2. If two or more persons have appointed an
agent for a common transaction or
undertaking, they shall be solidarily liable to
the agent for all the consequences of the
agency.
a. TRUE, Art. 1915.
The several principals shall be solidarily liable
respondeat superior.
Art. 1915. If two or more persons have
appointed an agent for a common transaction
or undertaking, they shall be solidarily liable to
the agent for all the consequences of the
agency
3. If an agent acts in his own name, the
principal has no right of action against the
persons with whom the agent has contracted;
neither have such persons against the
principal.
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
a. FALSE, as a general rule, the agent is the one
directly bound in favor of the person with
whom he has contracted, as if the transaction
were his own, except when the contract
involves things belonging to the principal. (Art.
1883, par. 2)
Art. 1883. If an agent acts in his own name, the
principal has no right of action against the
persons with whom the agent has contracted;
neither have such persons against the principal.
In such case the agent is the one directly bound
in favor of the person with whom he has
contracted, as if the transaction were his own,
except when the contract involves things
belonging to the principal.
The provisions of this article shall be
understood to be without prejudice to the
actions between the principal and agent.
In short, respondeat superior will not attach if
agent acted beyond or outside his authority
4. The agent may retain in pledge the things
which are the object of the agency until the
principal effects the reimbursement and pays
the agency for all the damages which the
execution of the agency may have caused the
latter, without fault or negligence on his part.
a. FALSE, because the agent may also retain in
pledge the things which are the object of the
agency not only for all the damages, but also for
the sums advanced (abono) by the agent for the
execution of the same. (Art. 1912 and 1913)
Art. 1912. The principal must advance to the
agent, should the latter so request, the sums
necessary for the execution of the agency.
Should the agent have advanced them, the
principal must reimburse him therefor, even if
the business or undertaking was not successful,
provided the agent is free from all faults.
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
The reimbursement shall include interest on the
sums advanced, from the day on which the
advance was made. (1728)
Art. 1913. The principal must also indemnify the
agent for all the damages which the execution
of the agency may have caused the latter,
without fault or negligence on his part.
Art. 1914. The agent may retain in pledge the
things which are the object of the agency until
the principal effects the reimbursement and
pays the indemnity set forth in the two
preceding articles.
5. The agent shall be liable for damages if
there is a conflict between his interests and
those of the principal.
a. FALSE, because the agent will only be liable
for damages, if, there being a conflict between
his interests and those of the principal, he
should prefer his own. (Art. 1889)
Art. 1889. The agent shall be liable for damages
if, there being a conflict between his interests
and those of the principal, he should prefer his
own.
6. Special power of attorney is necessary to
loan or borrow money.
a. TRUE, as a general rule
b. FALSE, the special power of attorney is NOT
NECESSARY in loan of money IF there is urgency
or it is for the preservation of the things which
are under the agent’s administration. (Art.
1878, par. 7)
7. When a sale of a piece of an immovable
property is through an agent, the authority of
the latter shall be in writing; otherwise the
sale shall be void.
a. FALSE, because the law provides “sale of a
piece of land”, not immovable. (Art. 1874)
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
Art. 1874. When a sale of a piece of land or any
interest therein is through an agent, the
authority of the latter shall be in writing;
otherwise, the sale SHALL BE VOID.
IN CONTRAST, a sale of every real property,
whether through an agent or not, must always
be in writing to OTHERWISE UNENFORCEABLE.
Art. 1403 (2)(e) An agreement of the leasing for
a longer period than one year, or for the sale of
real property or of an interest therein.
8. The agency may remain (not shall!) in full
force and effect even after the death of the
agent.
a. TRUE, as a general rule, the death of the
agent extinguishes the agency. However, if the
agency was constituted (a) for the benefit of
both parties or (b) for the benefit of a third
person who accepted the benefit, then that
agency shall continue even after the death of
the agent (medyo akin sa trust relationship to
pero hindi. Sa trust kasi, si beneficiary hindi nya
nid magaccept on the onset of the trust.
Kadalasan nga hindi alam ng beneficiary na may
ganon). (Art. 1930)
Art. 1930. The agency shall remain in full force
and effect even after the death of the principal,
if it has been constituted in the common
interest of the latter and of the agent, or in the
interest of a third person who has accepted the
stipulation in his favor.
Also, in Art. 1884. The agent is bound by his
acceptance (AGENCY is perfected through
consent/accepctance) to carry out the agency,
and is liable for the damages which, through his
non-performance, the principal may suffer.
He must also finish the business already begun
on the death of the principal, should delay
entail any danger.
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
9. The principal is not liable for the expenses
incurred by the agent if the agent acted in
contravention of the principal’s instructions.
a. FALSE, the principal may still be liable for the
expenses incurred by the agent even if the
latter acted in contravention of the former’s
instructions when the principal wants to avail of
the benefits derived by the agent (tacit
ratification). (Art. 1918)
Art. 1918. The principal is not liable for the
expenses incurred by the agent in the following
cases:
(1) If the agent acted in contravention of the
principal's instructions, unless the latter should
wish to avail himself of the benefits derived
from the contract;
(2) When the expenses were due to the fault of
the agent;
(3) When the agent incurred them with
knowledge that an unfavorable result would
ensue, if the principal was not aware thereof;
(4) When it was stipulated that the expenses
would be borne by the agent, or that the latter
would be allowed only a certain sum.
10. By the contract of agency, a person renders
some service or does something in
representation or on behalf of another, with
the consent or authority of the latter.
a. TRUE, Art. 1868.
i. Alternative answer: FALSE, not all acts in
representation or on behalf of another result to
agency. Art. 1868 does not contemplate social
and political representation. In order to have a
contract of agency, the purpose of the agency
must be the execution of a juridical act; the act
that will be executed by the agent on behalf of
the principal should create, modify, or
extinguish a legal relationship between the
principal and a third person. (Uribe lecture)
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
Art. 1868. By the contract of agency a person
binds himself to render some service or to do
something in representation or on behalf of
another, with the consent or authority of the
latter.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
1. A feature which is common to agency,
negotiorum gestio and guardianship is:
a. The relationship created by law
b. Based on trust and confidence
c. There is representation
d. One has control over the other
2. The following acts may not require an SPA
to be enforceable except: - malabo ung tanong
at
choices. isipin mong mabuti ha.
a. to make payment
b. to waive an obligation
c. to accept an inheritance
d. to make gifts
e. to loan or borrow money – if there is
urgency or if for the preservation of things
which are under the agent’s administration, the
SPA will not be necessary.
3. The performance of the following acts may
be delegated by a person to his agent, except:
a. to vote in a stockholders’ meeting
b. to enter into a contract of lease over his real
property for more than 1 year
c. acts of strict dominion
d. to represent the principal in a meeting of
board of directors’ of a company.
4. If the 3rd person with whom the agent
contracted was aware that the agent was
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
acting outside the scope of his authority (BAD
FAITH):
a. The contract is void and the principal will be
liable to 3rd persons
b. the contract is void and this contract cannot
be ratified
c. the contract is void and the agent will be
liable to 3rd persons
d. The contract is void and the agent will be
liable to the 3rd person if he undertook to
secure the principal’s ratification – Art. 1898
e. None of the above
5. A SPA may be valid even if:
a. not signed by the principal
b. not in writing
c. if it is not acknowledged (hindi notaryado)
before a person authorized to administer oaths
d. no authority is given
6. The following are characteristics of agency
as a contract:
a. consensual
b. essentially onerous
c. preparatory – this is the distinguishing
characteristic. Agency is not an accessory
contract ok? Pero hndi rin sya yung principal
contract. U wont enter into an agency for
naught. So hndi sya principal.
d. principal
7. The agent shall not be personally liable if:
a. he acted in his own name
b. he expressly binds himself
c. he acted fraudulently
d. he exceeded his authority but the 3rd
person was are of the limits of his authority
8. If the agency is couched in general terms; it
comprises
a. all the business of the principal
b. only one or more transactions but not all the
business of the principal
c. only acts of administration – Art. 1877
d. all acts of strict dominion
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
9. If the agent has been empowered to borrow
money:
a. he cannot be the lender without the consent
of the principal – walang nasasabe sa batas
b. he may himself be the lender at the current
rate of interest – current rate of interest ung
term na ginagamit in entering contracts, not
legal rates. Legal rates are the basis of the
court in determining the appropriate rates in
case of disputes.
c. he may himself be the lender at the legal rate
of interest – legal rate is determined by courts
d. he may himself be the lender but the loan
may comply with the Usury Law – wala nang
usury law
Art. 1890. If the agent has been empowered to
borrow money, he may himself be the lender at
the current rate of interest. If he has been
authorized to lend money at interest, he cannot
borrow it without the consent of the principal.
10. Even if the agents bound themselves
solidarily, they will not be held solidarily if:
a. the agent who caused damages acted in bad
faith
b. the agent who caused damages acted
negligently
c. the agent who caused damages acted in bad
faith
d. only one of them caused the damage
beyond the scope of their authority
Art. 1894. The responsibility of two or more
agents, even though they have been appointed
simultaneously, is not solidary, if solidarity has
not been expressly stipulated.
Multiple agents have separate responsibilities
Art. 1895. If solidarity has been agreed upon,
each of the agents is responsible for the non-
fulfillment of agency, and for the fault or
negligence of his fellows agents, except in the
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
latter case when the fellow agents acted
beyond the scope of their authority. (n)
TRUE OR FALSE
1. The authority of the agent must be in
writing in order for the contract that will be
entered into by the agent with a 3rd person to
bind the principal.
a. FALSE, agency must be in writing only in the
instances provided under Art. 1878. (SPA)
GENERAL AGENCY IS A CONSENSUAL CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE AGENT AND THE PRINCIPAL. IT
COVERS ACTS OF ADMINISTRATION ONLY IN
PURSUANCE OF THE INTEREST OF THE
PRINCIPAL AND HIS BUSINESS. SUCH PURPOSE
MAKES AGENCY A PREPARATORY CONTRACT “in
the pursuance of the principal’s business”
Art. 1869. Agency may be express, or implied
from the acts of the principal, from his silence
or lack of action, or his failure to repudiate the
agency, knowing that another person is acting
on his behalf without authority. (ostensible
agency)
Agency may be oral, unless the law requires a
specific form (that is when a form of special
powers of attorney is needed).
2. The acceptance of the agency (by the agent)
may be implied if the principal delivers his
power of attorney to the agent and the latter
receives it without any objection.
a. FALSE, a distinction must be made if the
acceptance is between persons who are present
and between persons who are absent:
i. In an acceptance between persons who are
present, the statement is true.
(Art. 1871)
ii. In an acceptance between persons who are
absent, acceptance cannot be implied from the
silence of the agent except –
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
1. Principal transmits his power of attorney to
the agent who receives it without any
objection;
2. Principal entrusts to the agent by letter or
telegram a power of attorney with respect to
the business in which the latter is habitually
engaged as an agent and he did not reply to the
letter or telegram.
(Art. 1872)
3. When a sale of an immovable is through an
agent, the authority of the latter shall be in
writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void.
a. FALSE, because the law provides “sale of a
piece of land”, not immovable. (Art. 1874)
4. Agency is onerous, unless there is proof to
the contrary.
a. FALSE, it is only presumed to be onerous (for
compensation), unless there is proof to
the contrary. (Art. 1875)
5. A SPA is necessary to abandon a prescription
already acquired.
a. TRUE, Art. 1878, par. 3.
6. A SPA is necessary to loan or borrow money.
a. FALSE, an SPA will not be required to loan or
borrow money when there is urgency
and is indispensable for the preservation of the
thing under administration. (Art. 1878,
par. 7)
7. The object of a contract of agency is a thing.
a. FALSE, it is the execution of a juridical act.
8. Any act which one may lawfully do
personally can be delegated to an agent.
a. FALSE, there are acts that are purely personal
and cannot be delegated to an agent such as
voting in national elections, and appearances in
board meeting.
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
Voting in stockholder’s meetings can be
delegated.
9. A person capable of acting for himself can
be an agent of another.
a. FALSE, in a contract of agency, as far as third
persons are concerned, what is important and
material is the legal capacity OF THE PRINCIPAL
to enter into a contract.
The capacity of the agent is of no moment. The
agent’s personality is merely an extension of
the principal’s personality. If the principal has
the necessary capacity, that is enough.
10. The object of a contract of agency is the
execution of an act in relation to a third
person.
a. FALSE, must be a juridical act; not all acts in
relation to a third person are juridical acts.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
1. This is an essential requisite of a contract of
agency:
a. that the agent is of age (it is the principal who
needs to be of age)
b. that the agent shall act in representation of
the principal (what do you call it?
c. execution of a juridical act – which makes a
contract of agency a preparatory contract
d. the promise of the principal to pay his agent
his commission (it is only presumed to be
onerous)
2. This act may be delegated to an agent:
a. execution of a will
b. making of an affidavit
c. to vote – take note “MAY”; a principal may
ask his agent to vote in stockholder meetings;
this is a better answer than NONE OF THE
ABOVE.
d. purely personal acts
e. none of the above
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
3. Who has the burden of proving that a
contract of agency is gratuitous?
a. the principal
b. the agent
c. whoever alleges that the contract is
gratuitous (because it is presumed onerous)
d. the third person with whom the agent
entered into a contract on behalf of the
principal
e. no one
4. A SPA is not necessary to:
a. to accept an inheritance – (Art. 1878, par. 13)
b. to sell the car of the principal – (Art. 1878,
par. 15)
c. to bind the principal in a contract of
partnership – (Art. 1878, par. 10)
d. to lease the land of a 3rd person for 3 years –
(Art. 1878, par. 8)
e. none of the above – all necessary
5. If the agent sold an immovable property of
the principal without a SPA, as a rule, the
contract of agency is:
a. void
b. voidable
c. valid – TAKE NOTE, the question is about the
contract of agency, NOT THE CONTRACT OF
SALE. A contract of agency is a preparatory
contract which means that there is another
contract that will be entered into. SO THE
AGENCY IS VALID..
d. unenforceable – well if you insist, yes, IF THE
QUESTION IS ABOUT THE CONTRACT OF SALE.
e. rescissible
TRUE OR FALSE
1. The commission agent who does not collect
the credits of his principal at the time when
they become due and demandable is liable for
damages.
a. FALSE, commission agent will not be liable if
he proves that he exercised due diligence in the
collection of credits.
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
Art. 1903. The commission agent shall be
responsible for the goods received by him in the
terms and conditions and as described in the
consignment, unless upon receiving them he
should make a written statement of the
damage and deterioration suffered by the
same. (n)
Art. 1904. The commission agent who handles
goods of the same kind and mark, which belong
to different owners, shall distinguish them by
countermarks, and designate the merchandise
respectively belonging to each principal. (n)
Art. 1905. The commission agent cannot,
without the express or implied consent of the
principal, sell on credit. Should he do so, the
principal may demand from him payment in
cash, but the commission agent shall be entitled
to any interest or benefit, which may result
from such sale. (n)
Art. 1906. Should the commission agent, with
authority of the principal, sell on credit, he shall
so inform the principal, with a statement of the
names of the buyers. Should he fail to do so, the
sale shall be deemed to have been made for
cash insofar as the principal is concerned. (n)
Art. 1907. Should the commission agent receive
on a sale, in addition to the ordinary
commission, another called a guarantee
commission, he shall bear the risk of collection
and shall pay the principal the proceeds of the
sale on the same terms agreed upon with the
purchaser. (n)
Art. 1908. The commission agent who does not
collect the credits of his principal at the time
when they become due and demandable shall
be liable for damages, unless he proves that he
exercised due diligence for that purpose. (n)
2. Should there be a stipulation that the agent
shall advance the necessary funds, he shall be
bound to do so.
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
a. FALSE, when the principal is insolvent, the
agent will not be required to advance the
necessary funds. (Art. 1886)
3. Should the commission agent receive on a
sale his commission, he shall bear the risk of
collection.
a. FALSE, this pertains to a guarantee
commission. (Art. 1907) It is only true if what is
received is a guarantee commission aside from
the ordinary commission.
4. If the agent has been empowered to borrow
money, he may himself be the lender.
a. TRUE, Art. 1890. Take note that the agent
must lend at the current rate of interest.
5. If the commission agent sold the goods on
credit, without the consent of the principal,
the sale is void
a. FALSE, the sale is valid. The implication of
such sale is that the principal may demand from
the agent payment in cash, but the commission
agent shall be entitled to any interest or benefit
which may result from such sale. (Art. 1905)
Sakto lang yan, eh yung commission lang naman
ni agent makabenta eh. Tubo nya na yung
interes ng pahulugan.
Sale on credit by an agent is on 1905-1906.
Notification thereof to the principal is essential.
Failure to do so would make the accountability
redound to the agent.
6. The acts of the substitute appointed against
the prohibition of the principal shall be void.
a. TRUE, Art. 1892.
Sub-agency
Art. 1892. The agent may appoint a substitute if
the principal has not prohibited him from
doing so (IBIG SABIHIN, KAHIT DI SYA BINIGYAN
NG POWER TO APPOINT, PWEDE PA RIN BSTA
SYA RESPONSIBLE); but he shall be responsible
for the acts of the substitute:
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
(1) When he was not given the power to
appoint one (respondeat superior does not
apply.. but if power was given, respondeat
superior applies);
(2) When he was given such power, but without
designating the person, and the person
appointed was notoriously incompetent or
insolvent. (may power to appoint, pero subject
to approval ni principal.. kapag hindi pina
approve, kargo pa rin nya. Respondeat superior
does not apply)
All acts of the substitute appointed against the
prohibition of the principal shall be void. (1721)
Art. 1893. In the cases mentioned in Nos. 1 and
2 of the preceding article, the principal may
furthermore bring an action against the
substitute with respect to the obligations which
the latter has contracted under the
substitution.
7. Private or secret orders and instructions of
the principal do not prejudice 3rd persons who
have relied upon the power of attorney or
instructions shown them.
a. TRUE, Art. 1902.
8. The agent who acts as such is not personally
liable to the party with whom he contracts.
a. FALSE, the agent may be personally liable
when he binds himself to the third person or he
exceeds limits his authority without giving such
party sufficient notice of his powers. (Art. 1897)
9. If the agent contracts in the name of the
principal, exceeding the scope of his authority,
and the principal does not ratify the contract,
it shall be void.
a. FALSE, the contract may be valid. It is valid if
the 3rd person is in good faith. It will only be
void if the third party with whom the agent
contract with is aware of the limits of the
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
powers granted by the principal yet they still
pursue on the contract. (Art. 1898)
10. A 3rd person cannot set up the fact that
the agent has exceeded his powers if the
principal ratified the agent’s acts
a. TRUE, Art. 1901.
hmmm.. going back to damages.. ung 3rd
person, meron syang cause of action kapag
good faith sya kasi wala n syang pwede ipag rely
kundi yung pinakitang dokumento or SPA.. pde
sya magkaso both kay principal and agent under
respondeat superior rule.
Kapag bad faith naman sya, yung contract
entered into by him with the agent SHALL BE
VOID. Hindi nya maano si principal kasi alam
nya n walang consent. Eh diba element ng
contract consent.
HERE ARE THE PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR APPLICATIONS
Art. 1897. The agent who acts as such is not
personally liable to the party with whom he
contracts, unless he expressly binds himself or
exceeds the limits of his authority without
giving such party sufficient notice of his powers.
(1725)
Art. 1898. If the agent contracts in the name of
the principal, exceeding the scope of his
authority, and the principal does not ratify the
contract, it shall be void if the party with whom
the agent contracted is aware of the limits of
the powers granted by the principal. In this
case, however, the agent is liable if he
undertook to secure the principal's ratification.
(n)
Art. 1899. If a duly authorized agent acts in
accordance with the orders of the principal, the
latter cannot set up the ignorance of the agent
as to circumstances whereof he himself was, or
ought to have been, aware. (n)
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
Art. 1900. So far as third persons are concerned,
an act is deemed to have been performed
within the scope of the agent's authority, if such
act is within the terms of the power of attorney,
as written, even if the agent has in fact
exceeded the limits of his authority according to
an understanding between the principal and the
agent. (n)
Art. 1901. A third person cannot set up the fact
that the agent has exceeded his powers, if the
principal has ratified, or has signified his
willingness to ratify the agent's acts. (n)
Art. 1902. A third person with whom the agent
wishes to contract on behalf of the principal
may require the presentation of the power of
attorney, or the instructions as regards the
agency. Private or secret orders and
instructions of the principal do not prejudice
third persons who have relied upon the power
of attorney or instructions shown them. (n)
Art. 1903. The commission agent shall be
responsible for the goods received by him in the
terms and conditions and as described in the
consignment, unless upon receiving them he
should make a written statement of the
damage and deterioration suffered by the
same.
Art. 1910. The principal must comply with all
the obligations which the agent may have
contracted within the scope of his authority.
As for any obligation wherein the agent has
exceeded his power, the principal is not bound
except when he ratifies it expressly or tacitly.
Art. 1911. Even when the agent has exceeded
his authority, the principal is solidarily liable
with the agent if the former allowed the latter
to act as though he had full powers.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
1. If the 3rd person with whom the agent
contracted was aware that the agent was
acting outside the scope of his authority:
a. Contract is void and the principal will be
liable to 3rd person – wrong, no consent.
b. Contract is void and this contract cannot be
ratified – still subject to ratification, implied or
express.
c. Contract is void and the agent will be liable to
3rd person – alam eh so hndi liable.
d. Contract is void and the agent will be liable
to 3rd person if he undertook to secure the
principal’s ratification and he failed to do so. –
alam pero may underlying promise so
nagcreate ng obligation.
2. By the fact that the agent acted in excess of
his authority, the contract that he entered into
can never be:
a. enforced against the principal – if good faith
si 3pt
b. unenforceable – same as above
c. voidable – wala ngang consent eh, hindi
naman vitiated ang consent e.
d. void – if bad faith si 3pt
3. If a commission agent sold the goods in
installment basis with interest without the
authority of the principal to sell on credit:
a. the principal will be entitled to the interest –
agent ung entitled
b. the agent will not be entitled to his
commission – entitled pa rin kasi valid pa rin
ung sale
c. the principal can demand payment from the
agent in cash – Art. 1905
d. the principal can recover the things sold from
the buyer – no, there can be no rescission kasi
wala naming breach na naganap.
4. Even if the agents bound themselves
solidarily, they will not be held solidarily if:
a. the agent who caused damage acted in good
faith – within the scope sya
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
b. the agent who caused damage acted
negligently – ito ung act
c. the agent who caused damage was at fault –
ito ung act
d. the agent who caused damage acted beyond
the scope of his authority – ung dalwang act,
outside the scope
5. If the agent has been empowered to borrow
money:
a. he cannot be the lender without the consent
of the principal – HE CAN
b. he may himself be the lender at the current
rate of interest
c. he may himself be the lender at the legal rate
of interest
d. he may himself be the lender but the loan
must comply with the Usury Law.
TRUE OR FALSE
1. If the agent dies, his heirs must notify the
principal thereof, and in the meantime adopt
such measures as the circumstances may
demand in the interest of the latter.
a. TRUE, Art. 1932.
It means that responsibility of agency can be
succeeded.
DEATH OF PRINCIPAL – generally extinguishes
agency. Except when common interest of both
of them or in the interest of a third person
Art. 1930. The agency shall remain in full force
and effect even after the death of the
principal, if it has been constituted in the
common interest of the latter and of the agent,
or in the interest of a third person who has
accepted the stipulation in his favor.
Art. 1931. Anything done by the agent, without
knowledge of the death of the principal or of
any other cause which extinguishes the agency,
is valid and shall be fully effective with respect
to third persons who may have contracted with
him in good faith. (1738)
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
2. If the agent has exceeded his authority, the
principal is jointly liable with the agent if the
former allowed the latter to act as though he
had full powers.
a. FALSE, the principal is solidarily liable, not
jointly, with the agent. (Art. 1911) RESPONDEAT
SUPERIOR
3. If two or more persons have appointed an
agent for a common transaction or
undertaking, they shall be jointly liable to the
agent for all the consequences of the agency.
a. FALSE, solidarily liable. (Art. 1915)
4. The principal is not liable for the expenses
incurred by the agent when the agent incurred
them with knowledge that an unfavorable
result would ensue.
a. FALSE, this will only apply if the principal was
not aware that an unfavorable result would
ensue. (Art. 1918, par. 3)
Art. 1918. The principal is not liable for the
expenses incurred by the agent in the following
cases:
(1) If the agent acted in contravention of the
principal's instructions, unless the latter should
wish to avail himself of the benefits derived
from the contract (implied ratification);
(2) When the expenses were due to the fault of
the agent;
(3) When the agent incurred them with
knowledge that an unfavorable result would
ensue, if the principal was not aware thereof (if
the incurrence);
(4) When it was stipulated that the expenses
would be borne by the agent, or that the latter
would be allowed only a certain sum. (n)
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
5. Agency is extinguished by the death of the
principal.
a. FALSE, when the agency is one coupled with
interest. (Art. 1930)
6. Notice of the revocation in a newspaper of
general circulation is a sufficient warning to 3rd
persons.
a. TRUE, Art. 1922.
b. ALTERNATIVE. FALSE, NOT ENTIRELY TRUE.
Only true if the agent had general powers
Art. 1922. If the agent had general powers,
revocation of the agency does not prejudice
third persons who acted in good faith and
without knowledge of the revocation. Notice of
the revocation in a newspaper of general
circulation is a sufficient warning to third
persons.
7. The agency is revoked if the principal
directly manages the business entrusted to the
agent, dealing directly with 3rd persons.
a. TRUE, Art. 1924.
Art. 1924. The agency is revoked if the principal
directly manages the business entrusted to the
agent, dealing directly with third persons.
The purpose ceases. The purpose is essential
element of agency. PERO PARA LANG TO DOON
SA MGA 3rd PERSON NA DEALT DIRECTLY BY THE
PRINCIPAL. Kasi baka may nauna na kontrata si
agent ehh. Pag nagconflict, ung point oftime
ang considered
8. A general power of attorney is revoked by a
special one granted to another agent, as
regards the special matter involved in the
latter.
a. TRUE, Art. 1926.
9. When two or more principals have granted a
power of attorney for a common transaction,
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
one of them cannot revoke the same without
the consent of the others.
a. FALSE, any one of the principals may revoke
the agency without the consent of the
others. (Art. 1925)
10. An agency cannot be validly revoked if a
bilateral contract depends upon it.
a. TRUE, Art. 1927.
Art. 1927. An agency cannot be revoked if a
bilateral contract depends upon it, or if it is the
means of fulfilling an obligation already
contracted, or if a partner is appointed manager
of a partnership in the contract of partnership
and his removal from the management is
unjustifiable.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
1. The principal must reimburse agent for the
sums advanced by him which shall include
interest on the sum advanced
a. from the time the agency was perfected
b. from the time the agency was made
c. from the time demand was made by the
agent
d. within 30 days from demand
e. from the day on which the advance was
made
2. When two persons leased the same thing,
one of them with the agent and the other with
the principal, and the two contracts are
incompatible with each other:
a. the contract earlier entered into shall be
preferred – vested rights largely depends on
point of time when there is no problem as to
personalities.
b. the contract entered into by the agent shall
be preferred if the agent acted in good faith
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
c. the contract entered into by the principal
shall be preferred if the principal acted in good
faith
d. the contract which was first registered in
good faith
3. The principal is NOT liable for the expenses
incurred by the agent in the following cases:
a. if the agent acted in contravention of the
principal’s instructions – may be liable if
principal ratified tacitly
b. when the expenses were due to the fault of
the principal – OBVIOUSLY LIABLE SI PRINCIPAL.
TANGINA K BA? the law provides that the
expenses were incurred due to the fault of the
AGENT, not the principal. (Art. 1918)
c. when the agent incurred them with
knowledge that an unfavorable result would
ensue – may be liable if principal is aware
d. When it was stipulated that the expenses
would be borne by the agent
e. All the above
4. If two or more persons have appointed an
agent for a common transaction or
undertaking, they shall be:
a. solidarily liable to the agent for all the
consequences of the agency – most complete
answer
b. jointly liable to the agent for all the
consequences of the agency
c. solidarily liable to the agent for all the
consequences of the agency only if stipulated –
agency may be oral. In general agency
d. solidarily liable to third persons – incomplete
answer
5. If the agent has exceeded his authority and
the principal allowed the agent to act as
though he had full powers
a. the principal will be jointly liable with the
agent
b. the principal will be solidarily liable with the
agent
c. only the principal will be liable
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
d. only the agent will be liable
SOME SHITS:
Ratifications in AGENCY
Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney (given to
agents) are necessary in the following cases
(acts of dominion):
(1) To make such payments as are not usually
considered as acts of administration;
(2) To effect novations which put an end to
obligations already in existence at the time the
agency was constituted;
(3) To compromise, to submit questions to
arbitration, to renounce the right to appeal
from a judgment, to waive objections to the
venue of an action or to abandon a prescription
already acquired;
(4) To waive any obligation gratuitously;
(5) To enter into any contract by which the
ownership of an immovable is transmitted or
acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable
consideration;
(6) To make gifts, except customary ones for
charity or those made to employees in the
business managed by the agent;
(7) To loan or borrow money, unless the latter
act be urgent and indispensable for the
preservation of the things which are under
administration;
(8) To lease any real property to another person
for more than one year;
(9) To bind the principal to render some service
without compensation;
(10) To bind the principal in a contract of
partnership;
(11) To obligate the principal as a guarantor or
surety;
(12) To create or convey real rights over
immovable property;
(13) To accept or repudiate an inheritance;
(14) To ratify or recognize obligations
contracted before the agency;
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
(15) Any other act of strict dominion.
So, in acts of dominion, hindi to pwedeng “ma-
deemed performed” kung walang SPA under
1900. Consent is different for ratification.
Consent is given before the transaction while
ratification comes later thereafter
Art. 1898. If the agent contracts in the name of
the principal, exceeding the scope of his
authority, and the principal does not ratify the
contract, it shall be void if the party with whom
the agent contracted is aware of the limits of
the powers granted by the principal. In this
case, however, the agent is liable if he
undertook to secure the principal's ratification.
Art. 1899. If a duly authorized agent acts in
accordance with the orders of the principal, the
latter cannot set up the ignorance of the agent
as to circumstances whereof he himself was, or
ought to have been, aware. (n)
Art. 1900. So far as third persons are concerned,
an act is deemed to have been performed
within the scope of the agent's authority, if such
act is within the terms of the power of attorney,
as written, even if the agent has in fact
exceeded the limits of his authority according to
an understanding between the principal and the
agent.
Art. 1901. A third person cannot set up the fact
that the agent has exceeded his powers, if the
principal has ratified, or has signified his
willingness to ratify the agent's acts.
Art. 1910. The principal must comply with all
the obligations which the agent may have
contracted within the scope of his authority.
As for any obligation wherein the agent has
exceeded his power, the principal is not bound
except when he ratifies it expressly or tacitly (by
writing or by implied acts, i.e. enjoyment of the
benefits).
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
Well, ratification is available in every act kahit
acts of dominion pa yan.. ang ano lang, si 3rd
person, no habol kay principal kapag walang
SPA. Bahala si principal mag ratify non if gusto
nya.
Art. 1403. The following contracts are
unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
(1) Those entered into in the name of another
person by one who has been given no authority
or legal representation, or who has acted
beyond his powers.
Art. 1408. Unenforceable contracts cannot be
assailed by third persons.
Art. 1317. No one may contract in the name of
another without being authorized by the latter,
or unless he has by law a right to represent him.
A contract entered into in the name of another
by one who has no authority or legal
representation, or who has acted beyond his
powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is
ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on
whose behalf it has been executed, before it is
revoked by the other contracting party.
Between Partners
Art. 1850. A general partner shall have all the
rights and powers and be subject to all the
restrictions and liabilities of a partner in a
partnership without limited partners. However,
without the written consent or ratification of
the specific act (below are specific acts) by all
the limited partners, a general partner or all of
the general partners have no authority to:
(1) Do any act in contravention of the
certificate;
(2) Do any act which would make it impossible
to carry on the ordinary business of the
partnership;
(3) Confess a judgment against the partnership;
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
(4) Possess partnership property, or assign their
rights in specific partnership property, for other
than a partnership purpose;
(5) Admit a person as a general partner;
(6) Admit a person as a limited partner, unless
the right so to do is given in the certificate;
(7) Continue the business with partnership
property on the death, retirement, insanity, civil
interdiction or insolvency of a general partner,
unless the right so to do is given in the
certificate.
In Negotiorum Gestio turned Express Agency
Art. 2149. The ratification of the management
by the owner of the business produces the
effects of an express agency, even if the
business may not have been successful.
UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS
Art. 1403. The following contracts are
unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
(1) Those entered into in the name of another
person by one who has been given no authority
or legal representation, or who has acted
beyond his powers (AGENCY);
(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of
Frauds (PARA HINDI MAGKALIMUTAN) as set
forth in this number.
In the following cases an agreement hereafter
made shall be unenforceable by action, unless
the same, or some note or memorandum,
thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the
party charged (or under seal), or by his agent;
evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot
be received without the writing (kelangan pa ba
sabihin to?. Well, substantial law precedes over
remedial law. See Parol Evidence Role), or a
secondary evidence (you mean parol evidence)
of its contents:
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
(a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be
performed within a year from the making
thereof (magkakalimutan yan after one year);
(b) A special promise to answer for the debt,
default, or miscarriage of another
(makakalimutan yan);
(c) An agreement made in consideration of
marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry
(ay jusko po. Ibg sbhn neto ung mga
paghahanda regarding marriage ah, kasi walang
“promise to marry” talaga);
(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels
or things in action (PUBLIC AUCTION SALES by
sheriff), at a price not less than five hundred
pesos, unless the buyer accept and receive part
of such goods and chattels, or the evidences, or
some of them, of such things in action or pay at
the time some part of the purchase money
(KASI WALA NANG MAGKAKALIMUTAN,
nagkabigayan na eh); but when a sale is made
by auction (PRIVATE AUCTION) and entry is
made by the auctioneer in his sales book, at the
time of the sale, of the amount and kind of
property sold, terms of sale, price, names of the
purchasers and person on whose account the
sale is made, it is a sufficient memorandum
(tignan mo yung word “memorandum”.. so
pagpapaalala. Ung statute of frauds about sa
pagpapaalala yan. Oi tangina m may asawa ka
na ganon.. See reference to memorandum in
rules of court for witnesses na makakalimutin
lalo na kung may utang o asawa);
(e) An agreement of the leasing for a longer
period than one year, or for the sale of real
property or of an interest therein;
(f) A representation as to the credit of a third
person.
(3) Those where both parties are incapable of
giving consent to a contract.
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!)
PAROL means ORAL or WRITTEN but UNSIGNED
or UNSEALED agreements.
Art. 1358. The following must appear in a public
document:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their
object the creation, transmission, modification
or extinguishment of real rights over immovable
property; sales of real property or of an interest
therein a governed by Articles 1403, No. 2, and
1405;
(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of
hereditary rights or of those of the conjugal
partnership of gains;
(3) The power to administer property, or any
other power which has for its object an act
appearing or which should appear in a public
document, or should prejudice a third person;
(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding
from an act appearing in a public document.
All other contracts where the amount involved
exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in
writing, even a private one. But sales of goods,
chattels or things in action are governed by
Articles, 1403, No. 2 and 1405.
Art. 1404. Unauthorized contracts are governed
by Article 1317 and the principles of agency in
Title X of this Book.
Art. 1405. Contracts infringing the Statute of
Frauds, referred to in No. 2 of Article 1403, are
ratified by the failure to object to the
presentation of oral evidence to prove the
same, or by the acceptance of benefit under
them.
Art. 1406. When a contract is enforceable under
the Statute of Frauds, and a public document is
necessary for its registration in the Registry of
Deeds, the parties may avail themselves of the
right under Article 1357.
Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers
Art. 1357. If the law requires a document or
other special form, as in the acts and contracts
enumerated in the following article, the
contracting parties may compel each other to
observe that form, once the contract has been
perfected. This right may be exercised
simultaneously with the action upon the
contract.
Art. 1407. In a contract where both parties are
incapable of giving consent, express or implied
ratification by the parent, or guardian, as the
case may be, of one of the contracting parties
shall give the contract the same effect as if only
one of them were incapacitated.
If ratification is made by the parents or
guardians, as the case may be, of both
contracting parties, the contract shall be
validated from the inception.
Art. 1408. Unenforceable contracts cannot be
assailed by third persons.
Art. 1317. No one may contract in the name of
another without being authorized by the latter,
or unless he has by law a right to represent him.
A contract entered into in the name of another
by one who has no authority or legal
representation, or who has acted beyond his
powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is
ratified, expressly or impliedly, by the person on
whose behalf it has been executed, before it is
revoked by the other contracting party.
IN NEGOTIORUM GESTIO
Art. 2144. Whoever voluntarily takes charge of
the agency or management of the business or
property of another, without any power from
the latter, is obliged to continue the same until
the termination of the affair and its incidents, or
to require the person concerned to substitute
him, if the owner is in a position to do so. This
Ktrl+’s more than Q&A Credit goes to the All Might who made this:
(Thanks for your quirk One For ALL!!) Civil Law Review II Questions and Suggested Answers

juridical relation does not arise in either of

these instances:

(1) When the property or business is not

neglected or abandoned;

(2) If in fact the manager has been tacitly

authorized by the owner.

In the first case, the provisions of Articles 1317,

1403, No. 1, and 1404 regarding unauthorized
contracts shall govern.
In the second case, the rules on agency in Title X
of this Book shall be applicable. (1888a)