 A is at fault for executing an absolute simulation whereas B is at fault for selling the house and lot to C when in

fact B doesn’t have the right to own yet the house and lot.
 Thus, the sale of the house and lot to C is void and A can recover it.

2. "A" bought the uncut, sugarcane crop of "B" still standing in the sugarcane field on "B's" estimation that the sugarcane
would produce 3000 piculs of sugar. However, when the sugarcane was processed it only yielded 2, 017 piculs of sugar.
Does the estimation of "B" constitute fraud as to invalidate the sale?

 No, estimation of B does not constitute fraud.

 Article 1340 : The usual exaggerations in trade, when the other party had an opportunity to know the facts, are
not in themselves fraudulent.
 Usual exaggerations in trade. It is the natural tendency for merchants and traders to resort to exaggerations in
their attempt to make a sale at the highest price possible. When the person dealing with them had an
opportunity to know the facts, the usual exaggerations in trade are not in themselves fraudulent. The
law allows considerable latitude to seller's statements or dealer's talk and experience teaches that it
is exceedingly risky to accept it at its face value. Customers are expected to know how to take care of their
concerns and to rely on their own independent judgment. Any person who relies on said exaggerations does so
at his own peril. (see Songco vs. Sellner,37 Phil.254.)

3. "A" offered to buy the car of "B" for P 250, 000. "B" on the other hand suggested the amount of P 400, 000 for the car.
"B" then sold and delivered the same car to "C". a) Who is the legal owner of the car? b) Was there a perfected contract
between "A" and "B"?

 C is the Legal owner of the car.

 There wasn’t a perfected contract of sale between A and B.
 There were no Acceptance of the offer between A and B. As per Article 1318, a contract requires Consent of the
contracting parties- meeting of the minds of the two parties. Which was not stated nor seen on the situation.

4. "A" wrote a letter to "B" offering one of his commercial spaces for lease to the latter. On May 7, 2020 "B" wrote a
letter to "A" signifying his acceptance of the offer which was received by "A" in the evening. However, on that same
morning "A" sent a letter to "B" withdrawing the offer. Was there a perfected contract of lease between "A" and "B"?

 There wasn’t a perfected contract of lease between A and B.

 Article 1324 states that when the offerer has allowed the offeree a certain period to accept, the offer may
be withdrawn at any time before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is
founded upon a consideration, as something paid or promised.
 Withdrawal of the offer may be withdrawn by the offeror at any time before acceptance. As it was said, the
offerer (A) sent to offeree (B) his withdrawal of the offer in the morning on May 7, 2020, right before the
acceptance of B which was sent in the evening on the same date. And may also consider that there was no
consideration founded for the contract to be continued.

5. An advertisement in a newspaper states: "For Sale: House and Lot located at No. 134 Taft. Avenue, Brgy. Ablan, City of
Batac. Lot Area: 1500 sq meters; House floor area: 500 sq mtr(fully furnished, 1 story) ; Price: 10 Million; Payment in
cash. Contact Juana Dela Cruz on the said address or call in this number 09102345687." After reading the advertisement
"B" called Juana Dela Cruz and accepted the house and lot for sale. Was there a perfected Contract of sale?

 Yes, there is a perfected contract of sale.

 Article 1325 under NCC provides that business advertisements of things for sale are not definite offers
acceptance of which will perfect a contract but are merely invitations to the reader to make an offer. However, if
the advertisement is complete in all particulars necessary in a contract, it may amount to a DEFINITE OFFER
which if accepted, will produce a perfected contract.