CASE ANALYSIS

The Law on Obligations and Contracts (2014)

By Hector S. De Leon and Hector M. De Leon, Jr.
Chapter 1 – General Provisions
ECE70 – C11
PANGILINAN, John Jomel O.

School of Electrical, Electronics, and Communication Engineering

Mapua University
Intramuros, Manila
pangilinanjohnjomel@gmail.com

Abstract – This paper discusses the THE PROBLEM

analysis and answer to the problems given on
Chapter which is all about the General Provisions.
Moreover, this paper will tackle different kinds of
obligations and the cause of obligations.
Keyword – General Provisions, obligations
I. QUESTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS
1. From the first problem, it can be assumed
that X shows an act of concern to the
needs of the child, which benefits the
mother, and her child. With this, the
answer is Yes. X is entitled to be
reimbursed by Y (the mother) for P150 if
X will choose to do so.

Two problems are stated in this paper, these are The actions of X falls under Negotorium
as follows: gestio a kind of quasi-contract and is
defined as “the voluntary management of
1. X saw at about one (1:00p.m.) in the
the property or affairs of another without
afternoon a child alone in a shopping mall.
the knowledge or consent of the latter”.
The child who strayed from Y, his mother,
This is defined through Article 2144.
was in tears and appeared very hungry. Out
Moreover, since the action of X is
of pity, X took him to a restaurant to eat for
bounded to quasi-contract, the Article
which he spent P150. Y did not give her
1160 also applies which says that
consent to the good deed of X.
“Obligations derived from quasi-contract
Furthermore, they were on their way home
shall be subject to the provisions of
before the child got lost. Is X entitled to
Chapter 1, Title XVII of this Book”.
reimbursed by Y for the amount of P150?
2. From the fourth problem, it can be
4. D (debtor) borrowed P10,000 from C
assumed that D and C agreed on a contract
(creditor). On the due date of the loan, D
willingly. The unfortunate event happened
could not pay C because he lost to a robber
to D may not be included to the contract
the P10,000 intended for C. in addition, he
which may not be considered. Only
suffered financial reverses, and he was
everything that is included in the contract
short of cash even for his current family’s
is valid. With this, the answer is No. D is
needs. Is D legally justified to refuse to pay
not legally justified to refuse to pay C.
C?
This is with accordance to Article 1159,
II. ANALYSIS/EVALUATION OF
which states that “Obligations arising
 from contracts have the force of law
between the contracting parties and
should be complied with in good faith.”

III. QUESTION/S TO ASK TO THE

PRESENTER
1. From the fourth problem, what can D
(debtor) do to be able to legally refuse to
pay C at a period of time?

IV. REFERENCES

[1] De Leon, Hector S, the Law on Obligations

and Contracts, REX Publishing Inc, p. 32, 2014
Revised Edition