1. A compromise agreement amounting P1,508.28 in cash was met between A (creditor) and B (debtor).

B made a tender and payment of P800.00. Was there a meeting of the minds between A and B?

HELD: No, because of the substantial variance in the amount contained in the offer, and in the
amount tendered. For perfection, the offerer has first to assent to the suggested modification caused
by the reduction in the price. Art. 1319

2. While still in the process of negotiation, the offeree suspended the payment of the check it
previously issued for failure of the offerer to sign certain documents. Was there a contract here
which would preclude the offeree to withdraw from the pay?

HELD: No, because the legal suspension of the check payment clearly indicates that the transaction
was merely in the stage of negotiation; otherwise, the offeree would not have been allowed to legally
withdraw from the pay. Art. 1319

3. Article 1323 provides “ An offer made through an agent is accepted from the time acceptance is
communicated to him.” Suppose the principal himself made the offer, and acceptance is
communicated to the agent, would the Article apply? In other words, would there already be a
meeting of the minds?

ANS.: It is submitted that as a general rule, there would as yet be no meeting of the minds, for the
agent may be an ordinary one, not authorized to receive the acceptance for the PARTICULAR
transaction. However, if the agent was expressly authorized to receive the acceptance, or if the
offeree had been told that acceptance could be made direct with the agent, who would then be given
freedom to act or to proceed, there can be a meeting of the minds and a perfection of the contract.

4. A offered to sell his house and lot for P10M to B, who was interested in buying the same. In his letter
to B, A stated that he was giving B a period of one month within which to raise the amount, and that
as soon as B is ready, they will sign the deed of sale. One week before the expiration of the one-
month period, A went to B, and told him that he is no longer willing to sell the property unless the
price is increased to P15M. May B compel A to accept the P10M first offered, and execute the sale?
Reasons.

ANS.. NO because here the promise to sell (or the option granted B to buy) had no cause or
consideration distinct from the selling price.(Arts. 1479 and 1324, Civil Code; See Mendoza, et al. v.
Comple, L-19311, Oct. 29, 1965).

5. If a hospitalized leper or a very old man has not been placed under guardianship, may he still enter
into a binding contract?

ANS.: Yes, because he would still be presumed capacitated to enter into a contract (although
classified as an "incompetent"). Of course, if it can be shown that intelligent consent was absent, the
contract can be considered VOIDABLE. (See Cui, et al. v. Cui, et al., 100 Phil. 913).
(NOTE: There is, therefore, a difference between an 'incompetent" under the Rules of Court, and a
person who cannot give consent to a contract" under the Civil Code.] Art. 1327,1328, 1329
6. Tabacalera and Co. entered into a contract of guaranty, allegedly because the customs investigator
threatened to prevent the sailing of its vessel unless the specific taxes and other charges on the
imports were first paid. After the ship sailed, the Company, pursuant to the guaranty, made
payment. Was the contract valid?

HELD: Granting that the threat was made, still it was a justified and legal threat. Moreover, it should
be noted that when the ship had sailed, the duress no longer existed and yet payment was still made.
This evidently is a valid ratification of the promise. Art. 1335

7. X, desiring to buy certain property, hired an expert to ascertain its true value. But the expert's
opinion turned out to be wrong and X was, therefore misled. May X ask for the annulment of the
contract?

ANS.: No, because his own expert (and therefore his employee) committed the error. Art. 1341

8. A and B entered into a contract with X. A's consent was obtained only because B had deceived or
defrauded him. May A ask for annulment of the contract with X?

HELD: No, because X was not a party to the fraud. Art. 1342

9. When his father died, but before delivery of the property to him, a son sold his share of the property
inherited. Is the sale valid?

ANS: Yes, the sale is valid. The inheritance here is not future inheritance, but existing inheritance,
although as yet undelivered. Ownership is transferred automatically to the heir upon the death of the
decedent, Said the Supreme Court: "The properties of an existing inheritance cannot be considered as
another's property with relation to the heirs who, through a fiction of law, continue the personality of
the owner. Nor do they have the character of future property because the predecessor in interest
having already died, his heirs acquired a right to succeed him from the moment of his death. An
inheritance already existing, which is no longer future from the moment of death of the predecessor,
may legally be the object of contract." (Osorio u. Osorio and Inchausti Steamship Co., 41 Phil. 513).
Art. 1347

10. While his father was still alive, A sold to B the property he (A) expected to receive from his father. Is
the contract valid?

ANS.: No, because the object of the contract here is really future inheritance, and the particular
contract in this case is not one of those authorized by law regarding inheritance. (Tordilla v. Tordilla,
60 Phil. 162.) Art. 1347