Anthony Jones N.

Ayop Obligations and Contracts

Assignment 1:

1.) As to defect:

Void contracts: caused by lack of essential elements or illegality

Voidable contracts: defect is caused by vices of consent

Rescissible contracts: caused by injury or damage either to one of the parties or a 3rd person

Unenforceable contracts: caused by lack of form, authority or capacity of both parties not cured by
presciption

2.) As to effect:

Void contracts: no legal effect, as a general rule

Voidable contracts: valid and enforceable until they're annulled by a competent court

Rescissible contracts: valid and enforceable until rescinded by a competent court

Unenforceable contracts: can't be enforced by a proper action in court

3.) As to prescription to declare nullity:

Void contracts: no prescription for a declaration of nullity, inexistence or defense of nullity

Voidable contracts: action for annulment or defense of annulability can prescribe

Rescissible contracts: action for prescription can prescribe

Unenforceable contracts: corresponding action for recovery if there was total or partial performance of
the unenforceable contract under no. 1 or 3 Art. 1403 of the Civil Code may prescribe

4.) As to curative effect of prescription:

Void contracts: can't be cured by prescription

Voidable contracts: can be cured by prescription

Rescissible contracts: can be cured by prescription

Unenforceable contracts: can't be cured by prescription

5.) As to ratification:

Void contracts: can't be ratified

Anthony Jones N. Ayop Obligations and Contracts

Voidable contracts: can be ratified

Rescissible contracts: don't need to be ratified

Unenforceable contracts: can be ratified

6.) As to who can assail/question/attack:

Void contracts: not just the contracting parties, but also a 3rd person whose interest is directly affected

Voidable contracts: only a contracting party

Rescissible contracts: not just the contracting parties, but also a 3rd person who is prejudiced or
damaged by the contract

Unenforceable contracts: only a contracting party

7.) As to direct or collateral attack:

Void contracts: can be attacked both directly and collaterally

Voidable contracts: can be attacked both directly and collaterally

Rescissible contracts: direct attack only

Unenforceable contracts: can be attacked both directly and collaterally

Assignment 2:

It held that the action of the Spouses Po had not yet prescribed because their complaint in 1996 was
within the 10-year prescriptive period as the title in favor of the Spouses Aboitiz was issued in 1994.

They likewise assert that the Spouses Po's cause of action has prescribed and allegedly accrued when
the Deed of Absolute Sale between the Spouses Po and Ciriaco was executed on May 5, 1978. They
maintain that more than 10 years had elapsed when the complaint was filed on November 12, 1996, thus
barring the action through prescription.

The Spouses Aboitiz further insists that "estoppel and laches have already set in."They claim that they
have been "in open, public, continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful and adverse possession" in the concept
of owners over the property for "46 years as of 1993," without the Spouses Po acting on the Deed of
Absolute Sale. They attest that the development of North Town Homes Subdivision "was covered by
utmost publicity," but the Spouses Po did not immediately question the development or interpose any
objection during the registration proceedings.

They posit that the Deed of Absolute Sale between Ciriaco and the Spouses Po is "clearly fake and
fraudulent" as evidenced by certifications of its non-existence in the notarial books and the Spouses Po's
failure to enforce their rights over the property until 18 years later. They also affirm that the Deed of
Absolute Sale between Ciriaco and the Spouses Po's inadmissible as no documentary stamp was paid
and affixed.
Anthony Jones N. Ayop Obligations and Contracts

The following are the relevant issues discussed by the Supreme Court:

First, whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the Spouses Peter and Victoria Po's
complaint;

Second, whether the action is barred by prescription,

Third, whether the doctrines of estoppel and laches apply;

Fourth, whether the land registration court's finding that Ciriaco Seno only held the property in trust for
the Mariano Heirs is binding as res judicata in this case;

Fifth, whether the Deed of Absolute Sale between Ciriaco Seno and the Spouses Peter and Victoria Po
should be considered as evidence of their entitlement to the property;

Sixth, whether the Mariano Heirs, as sellers in a deed of conveyance of realty, are indispensable parties;
and

Finally, whether the respondents Jose Maria Moraza, Ernesto Aboitiz, and Isabel Aboitiz are innocent
purchasers in good faith.

Assignment 3:

1. Use of public waters

2. Usufruct
3. Continuous and apparent easement
4. Modes of Acquiring Ownership
5. Acquiring property or rights
6. Ownership of Movables
7. Ownership of Personal Property
8. Ownership and other real rights over immovable property
9. Actions to recover movables
10. Real actions over immovable
11. Mortgage Action
12. Actions upon a written Contract
13. Actions upon an obligation created by law
14. Actions upon a judgement
15. Actions upon an oral contract
16. Actions upon a quasi-contract
17. Actions upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff
18. Actions upon a quasi-delict
19. Actions for forcible entry and detainer
20. Actions for defamation
21. Extinguishment of Obligations
22. Right to sue upon a civil obligation