1.

While the car of X was parked by the roadside, it was bumped at the rear by a jeep
belonging to Y. Only the car suffered damage. Is Y liable to X? Why?
- Yes, in this situation, Y is liable to X. Assuming that the car was parked by the side
of the road and that Y struck it while driving carelessly, Y is responsible for
compensating X for any damages, even if only the car was harmed. According to
Article 2176, anyone who injures someone by their own fault or neglect must
compensate for the harm they have caused. The article supports both property
damage, such as damage to cars, as well as injury to people. Additionally, the car was
at rest and assuming that it was parked properly by X, this also adds to arrive to the
conclusion that Y is at fault and is liable to pay such damage.

2. X saw a child at around 2:00 in the afternoon alone in the shopping mall. The child
who strayed from Y, his mother, was in tears and appeared very hungry. Out of
pity, X spent P500 in a restaurant to buy food for the child. The mother gave no
consent to the good deed of X. Is X entitled to be reimbursed by Y the amount of
P500? Why?
- No, X is not entitled to compensation from Y for P500 because X's act was voluntary
and motivated by compassion. Since Y was also seeking for her own child, who was
with X at the time, she did not give X permission to spend any money on the child.
Since there is no written agreement that Y must pay X P500, X is not entitled to
reimbursement from Y. However, if X continues to insist that X is responsible for
covering his or her child-related expenses, they may reach a deal known as a quasi-
contract. A quasi-contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two persons
who have never had a prior relationship and is done by a judge. It is to produce a fair
result in a circumstance where one party gains something at the expense of the other.