1.

Don Eliseo, father of Armando, owned two (2) parcels of land consisting of 500 sq. m. and 451 sq. m.
located at Antipolo City. The two (2) parcels of land were sold to Honrado at P1,000,000.00 and
P750,000.00, respectively. Armando, contending that the contract price for the two (2) parcels of land
was grossly inadequate, tried to negotiate with Honrado to increase the purchase price. When Honrado
refused, Armando then filed a complaint for annulment of sale. Honrado alleged that the contract of
sale was null and void on the ground that Don Eliseo, at that time, already had senile dementia.
Honrado, on the other hand, contended that Armando had effectively ratified both contracts of sales, by
receiving the consideration offered in each transaction.

a. What is the status of the contracts of sale?

The contract of sale is a formal contract which a seller agrees to sell, and a buyer agrees to buy, under
certain terms and conditions spelled out in writing in the document signed by both parties. There are
essential of a valid sale or a contract of sale which include: Essential Elements of a valid contract. All the
requirements of a valid contract such as free consent, consideration, competency of the parties, lawful
object and consideration must be fulfilled. In this case the contract for sale is void because the seller
(Don Eliseo) was not in capacity to enter the contract because he was suffering from senile dementia.

b. What remedy does Armando have, if any?

Because Armando did not suffer any damages or injuries, the only remedy that Armando must cancel
the contract because the contract is voidable. He can cancel the contract so that each party can return
to the normal state as if the contract did not take place. Armando can also request the buyer to
negotiate again about the contract and make a new contract of sale.

2. Abel sued Cain for partition of the lots inherited by both parties from their deceased
father. Cain, however, moved to dismiss on the ground that some years before a final and
executory judgment (based on a compromise agreement) involving the same parties, same
subject matter, and same causes of action had already been rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction, and that therefore the doctrine of res judicata clearly bars the
present case. Abel contends that said judgment is void because the compromise agreement
had been signed in their behalf by their lawyer who had not been authorized by them to
enter into such agreement, and consequently, there can be no res judicata. What is the
status of the compromise agreement?

The case will prosper as the res judicata will not apply on the grounds that any new
evidence that the compromised agreement was signed by their lawyer who was not
authorized to do so. As such, the agreement was voidable without prejudice to another
cause action under principle of res judicata.
3.Robin and Rommel entered into an agreement wherein Rommel will deliver the drugs
Robin is selling to a prospective buyer. Two (2) months have passed and yet the contract
was not executed. Robin has been harassing Rommel to fulfill the agreement.

What is the status of the agreement?

The agreement is unenforceable and non-existent because the subject matter is illegal and
prohibited by law. A contract that is illegal is immediately void, and both parties could face
criminal prosecution.