SECTION 5- COMPENSATION

1278- COMPENSATION SHALL TAKE PLACE WHEN TWO PERSONS, IN THEIR OWN RIGHT ARE
CREDITORS AND DEBTORS OF EACH OTHER.

36- C. FACULTATIVE COMPENSATION- SECTION 5. COMPENSATION

. Statement no. 1: "Legal compensation takes place by operati/on of ?;, also known as
set-off, is ./.a. legal mechanism where two parties owe each other money.?., and the
debts are /e.//./.xtinguished or reduced by setting them off against each other. This
process occurs auto//matically by operation of law, regardless of whether the parties are
aware of it or not. So, Statement no. 1 is true.

Statement no. 2: "The indivisibility of an obligation necessarily implies solidarity."

Explanation: Indivisibility of an obligation means that it cannot be performed partially; it
must be fulfilled in its entirety. Solidarity, on the other hand, refers to a situation where
multiple debtors are jointly responsible for the entire obligation. While solidarity often
accompanies indivisibility, they are not necessarily synonymous. Not all indivisible
obligations imply solidarity. Therefore, Statement no. 2 is false.

38. C.
1. Specific Performance: The creditor may seek a court order for specific performance,
compelling the debtor to fulfill the original obligation. In this case, the court may order a
third party to deliver the 100 cavans of rice to the creditor on behalf of the debtor.
2. Damages: In addition to seeking specific performance, the creditor may also claim
damages from the debtor for the losses suffered due to the non-performance. Damages
could include compensation for any financial loss or inconvenience caused by the
debtor's failure to deliver the rice as agreed.

So, the answer suggests that the creditor (C) has the option to ask a third person to
deliver the rice, and the value recoverable from the debtor (D) would include both the
original value of the rice and any damages incurred by the creditor due to the breach of
the obligation

39. C. JUDICILA COMPENSATION

, in the context of your question, if the term "judicial compensation" is meant

to signify compensation that arises through a proved counterclaim presented
in a judicial proceeding, it aligns with the general concept of counterclaims
and remedies granted by the court. It's essential to note that specific legal
terms may vary by jurisdiction, and it would be advisable to consult the
relevant legal sources or seek clarification if this term is not commonly used in
your legal context.

40. A. BOTH STATEMENT ARE TRUE

Statement no. 1: "Payment made to an incapacitated person is good only up to the

extent that he was benefited or up to the amount that he was able to keep."

Explanation: This statement is in line with the legal principle that governs payments
made to incapacitated persons. When a person lacks the legal capacity, such as being
mentally incapacitated, to enter into a valid contract, any payment made to them is
considered "good" or valid only to the extent that it benefits them. In other words, if the
incapacitated person receives a benefit from the payment (such as goods or services),
the payment is valid up to the value of that benefit. However, any amount beyond what
was beneficial to the incapacitated person may not be legally enforceable.

Statement no. 2: "In obligations arising from quasi-contracts, consent of the parties is
not necessary."

Explanation: This statement is true in the context of quasi-contracts. Quasi-contracts are

legal obligations that arise in the absence of a formal agreement between the parties.
Unlike contracts, where there is a meeting of the minds and mutual consent, quasi-
contracts are based on the principle of unjust enrichment. These obligations are
imposed by law to prevent one party from unfairly benefiting at the expense of another.
In quasi-contracts, the consent of the parties is not necessary because the obligation is
not created through a voluntary agreement; rather, it is imposed by law to rectify an
unjust situation.

So, in summary, both statements are true. Payment made to an incapacitated person is
valid only to the extent of the benefit received by the incapacitated person, and in
obligations arising from quasi-contracts, the consent of the parties is not necessary as
these obligations are imposed by law.

41. C. 9
In a solidary obligation, each debtor is individually responsible for the entire debt, and
each creditor is entitled to claim the entire amount from any one of the debtors. The
answer provided, "C," implies that creditor C can collect from debtor A.
 Explanation:

 A, B, and C are solidary debtors, meaning they are jointly and severally liable for the
entire debt of 12,000. This implies that any one of them can be held responsible for the
full amount.
 X, Y, Z, and W are joint creditors. In a solidary obligation, any one of the joint creditors
has the right to collect the entire debt from any one of the solidary debtors.

So, if creditor C decides to collect from debtor A, this action is legally valid. The other
creditors (X, Y, Z, and W) would still have the right to claim their respective shares from
the remaining solidary debtors (B and C).

Therefore, the correct answer would be:

c. 9,000

42. C.
The correct answer is (c) "Both the principal obligation and the mortgage are
extinguished by remission."

Explanation:

1. Principal Obligation: A renounced the obligation in favor of X through a public

instrument. ]-Renunciation, in legal terms, is a form of remission or forgiveness of a
debt. When A renounces the obligation in favor of X, it means A is relinquishing the
right to enforce the debt against X. As a result, the principal obligation between X, Y, Z,
and A is extinguished.
2. Real Estate Mortgage: The loan was secured by a mortgage on B's land. Typically,
when a debt is secured by a mortgage, the mortgage serves as collateral for the debt. In
this case, since A has renounced the obligation in favor of X, it implies that A is also
relinquishing any claim on the collateral, which is the real estate mortgage on B's land.
As a result, the real estate mortgage is extinguished.

So, the correct interpretation is that both the principal obligation and the mortgage are
extinguished by remission. A's act of renouncing the obligation includes both the debt
and any security interest (such as the real estate mortgage) associated with that debt.

43. C
The correct answer is (c) "Will pay you 10,000.00 'if I like.'"
 Explanation:

An obligation with a period refers to a situation where the fulfillment of the obligation is
subject to a specific term or period. Let's examine each option:

a. Payable soonest: This implies a short period for payment and falls under the
category of obligations with a period.

b. An obligation payable little by little: This suggests periodic or installment

payments, and it is considered an obligation with a period.

c. Will pay you 10,000.00 'if I like': This option introduces an element of uncertainty
and discretion on the part of the debtor. It does not specify a definite period or term for
payment. This lack of certainty regarding when or if the payment will be made means
that it is not an obligation with a period.

d. Payable 'within 2 years from today': This clearly defines a specific period (2 years)
for payment and is an example of an obligation with a period.

Therefore, the correct answer is (c) "Will pay you 10,000.00 'if I like'" because it lacks the
specificity of a period, making it different from the other options.

44. C
The correct answer is (c) "It should be serious and should not have been employed by
both contracting parties."

Explanation:

Fraud is a legal concept that can render a contract voidable, meaning that the innocent
party has the option to either affirm or void the contract. To establish that fraud makes a
contract voidable, certain conditions must be met. The relevant conditions in this
context are:

1. Seriousness of Fraud: The fraud must be serious, meaning it must be substantial and
not incidental. It should go to the heart of the contract and have a material impact on
the agreement.
2. Non-Involvement of Both Parties in the Fraud: For the contract to be voidable due to
fraud, the party seeking to void the contract (the innocent party) should not have been a
party to the fraud. If both parties are actively involved in the fraudulent activity (in pari
 delicto), the court may be less inclined to grant relief to either party, as they are
considered equally at fault.

Option (c) correctly captures these conditions. It states that the fraud should be serious
(substantial) and should not have been employed by both contracting parties, aligning
with the legal principles that typically surround the voidability of contracts due to fraud.

45. The correct answer is (c) "Bernie may withdraw or increase the price within the 60-
day period."

Explanation:

The scenario described here involves an option contract. In an option contract, one
party (the optionor, in this case, Bernie) gives another party (the optionee, in this case,
Zo) the right to accept an offer within a specified period of time. During this period, the
optionor is generally bound by the offer, meaning they cannot revoke it.

However, there are some nuances to consider:

1. Withdrawal: Typically, an offeror cannot withdraw the offer during the option period.
However, this rule may not apply if there is separate consideration provided for the
option. If there is no separate consideration, the offeror is generally bound by the offer
during the option period.
2. Increase of Price: In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, an offeror may have
the right to increase the price during the option period. However, the increase must not
be done in bad faith, and there may be legal limitations on the extent to which the price
can be increased.

purchaser who is unsure whether or not he wants to buy the property can
enter into an option contract with the seller. This will give the him/her an
option to buy a particular asset at a later date at an agreed upon price. If the
seller reneges on his word and disposes of the property in favor of another
before the end of the agreed time, the purchaser can sue him for damages.

Under the Civil Code:

An option contract is defined in the second paragraph of Article 1479 of
the Civil Code as:
Article 1479. x x x An accepted promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is
binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price.
 It is a contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person
that he shall have the right to buy his property at a fixed price within a certain
time. It is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a
consideration distinct from the price. An option contract is likewise a separate
and distinct contract from a contract of sale.

In the case of Philippine National Oil Company and PNOC Dockyard & Engineering
Corporation, vs. Keppel Philippines Holdings, Inc., (G.R. No. 202050, July 25,
2016) the Supreme Court discussed that:
An option contract must be supported by a separate consideration that is
either clearly specified as such in the contract or duly proven by the
offeree/promisee.

An option contract is a contract where one-person (the offeror/promissor) grants

to another person (the offeree/promisee) the right or privilege to buy (or to
sell) a determinate thing at a fixed price, if he or she chooses to do so within
an agreed period.
As a contract, it must necessarily have the essential elements of subject
matter, consent, and consideration. Although an option contract is deemed a
preparatory contract to the principal contract of sale, it is separate and distinct
therefrom, thus, its essential elements should be distinguished from those of
a sale.
In an option contract, the subject matter is the right or privilege to buy (or to
sell) a determinate thing for a price certain, while in a sales contract, the
subject matter is the determinate thing itself. The consent in an option contract
is the acceptance by the offeree of the offeror’s promise to sell (or to buy) the
determinate thing, i.e., the offeree agrees to hold the right or privilege to buy
(or to sell) within a specified period. This acceptance is different from the
acceptance of the offer itself whereby the offeree asserts his or her right or
privilege to buy (or to sell), which constitutes as his or her consent to the
sales contract. The consideration in an option contract may be anything of value,
unlike in a sale where the purchase price must be in money or its equivalent.
There is sufficient consideration for a promise if there is any benefit to the
offeree or any detriment to the offeror.
An option imposes no binding obligation on the person holding the option aside
from the consideration for the offer. Until accepted, it is not treated as a sale.

In the context of the options provided:

 Option (a) is incorrect because increasing the price within the option period might not
be permissible without an agreement to do so.
 Option (b) is incorrect because withdrawal may be allowed in some circumstances,
especially if there is separate consideration for the option.
 Option (c) is correct because it recognizes the possibility of withdrawal or price increase
within the 60-day period.
 Option (d) is incorrect because the mere fact that an option contract exists doesn't
prevent withdrawal or price increase; it depends on the terms and conditions of the
contract.

Therefore, the most accurate answer is (c) "Bernie may withdraw or increase the price
within the 60-day period."

46. C
; correct answer is (c) "The obligation is valid because the condition merely causes the
loss of rights already acquired."

Explanation:

The given statement describes a conditional obligation where the fulfillment of the
obligation depends on a particular condition. In this case, the condition is: "if I like to
have it back, you will return the same to me."

The key to understanding the validity of such a conditional obligation lies in the nature
of the condition. If the condition is within the control of the party obligated (the debtor),
and the obligation becomes entirely dependent on the debtor's will, it could render the
obligation void. However, if the condition is such that it merely causes the loss of rights
already acquired, the obligation remains valid.

In the given statement:

 The condition is based on the debtor's (receiver of the book) liking or preference.
 The wording suggests that once the debtor has acquired the book, the condition arises
if the debtor decides they want it back.

Since the condition is related to the debtor's preference after acquiring the book, and
the loss of rights is tied to the debtor's own actions, the obligation is considered valid. It
doesn't render the obligation entirely dependent on the debtor's will in a way that
would make it void.

Therefore, the correct answer is (c) "The obligation is valid because the condition merely
causes the loss of rights already acquired."
 47. C
I appreciate your clarification. Let's revisit the analysis:

The statement is: "I will give you this book provided that if I like to have it back, you will
return the same to me."

In this context:

 The condition is based on the will or preference of the party making the promise (the
giver of the book).
 The obligation is on the party receiving the book (the receiver).

While it's true that the condition depends on the will of the party making the promise,
the key aspect to consider is that the condition is not within the control of the party
obligated to perform. The receiver cannot control whether the giver will want the book
back or not; it depends on the giver's preference.

Therefore, the correct interpretation is that the fulfillment depends upon the will of the
debtor (the giver of the book), and the obligation is valid because the condition merely
causes the loss of rights already acquired.

So, the correct answer is:

c. The obligation is valid because the condition merely causes the loss of rights already
acquired.

48. C
The correct answer is (c) "Payment using negotiable instrument."

Explanation:

1. Complete or full payment (a): Payment must be complete or in full to extinguish an

ordinary obligation. This means satisfying the entire amount owed.
2. Payment in due course when the obligation is due and demandable (b): Payment
must be made at the right time, which is when the obligation is due and demandable.
Premature or delayed payments may not be effective in extinguishing the obligation.
3. Payment using negotiable instrument (c): This is the exception. While negotiable
instruments (such as checks or promissory notes) can be used as a means of payment,
they do not, by themselves, extinguish the obligation. The negotiable instrument
represents a promise to pay, and the actual payment occurs when the instrument is
 honored. Until the negotiable instrument is honored (e.g., the check is cleared), the
obligation is not fully extinguished.
4. Payment using legal tender, except if payable in foreign currency (d): Generally,
payment must be made in legal tender (official currency accepted by the government).
There are exceptions, such as when the contract explicitly specifies payment in a foreign
currency.

So, the exception among the given options is (c) "Payment using negotiable
instrument."

49.

Explanation:

1. Culpa (a): Culpa refers to fault or negligence. If someone is at fault or negligent and
causes harm to another party, it can be a ground for damages.
2. Bad faith (b): Bad faith involves intentional dishonesty or a lack of sincerity in dealing
with others. Operating in bad faith can be a basis for claiming damages.
3. Dolo causante (c): Dolo causante refers to causal fraud or deceit. While it involves
intentional deception, it is not typically a ground for damages because the term itself
suggests that the deceit is a cause (causante). In legal terms, dolo causante may be used
to describe a more severe form of fraud, often involving the manipulation of the other
party's will.
4. Mora (d): Mora refers to delay or default in the performance of an obligation.
Depending on the circumstances, mora can be a ground for damages, especially if the
delay causes harm or loss to the other party.

In summary, "Dolo causante" is not typically considered a ground for damages, as it may
refer to a specific form of fraud but does not inherently imply a claim for damages. The
other options (culpa, bad faith, and mora) can potentially be grounds for damages in
various legal contexts.

50. C
The correct answer is (c) "Natural fruits."

Explanation:
1. Industrial Fruits (a): Industrial fruits typically refer to products that result from
industrial or manufacturing processes. They are not spontaneous products of the soil or
animal offspring.
2. Civil Fruits (b): Civil fruits are benefits or advantages that arise from the use or
enjoyment of property. They are not related to spontaneous products of the soil or
animal offspring.
3. Natural Fruits (c): Natural fruits, as mentioned in the question, are the correct category.
Natural fruits are products that result from the spontaneous growth of the soil without
the intervention of human labor (e.g., fruits from trees, vegetables). Additionally, animal
offspring, which is also mentioned in the question, is considered a form of natural fruit.
4. All of the Above Fruits (d): This option is not correct because industrial and civil fruits
are distinct categories, and not all of them fall under the umbrella of natural fruits. The
correct answer is limited to natural fruits.

Therefore, the correct answer is (c) "Natural fruits," as it encompasses both spontaneous
products of the soil and animal offspring resulting without the intervention of human
labor.
2. The correct answer is:

d. None of the above

In this scenario, where there was a mistake in the document due to the negligence of
the clerk (T), it could be considered a mistake in the drafting of the contract. When a
mistake occurs, it may lead to issues related to the type of contract intended by the
parties. In such cases:

a. The remedy is annulment: Annulment typically applies to situations involving void or

voidable contracts, often due to factors such as fraud, duress, or lack of capacity. In this
case, it's a mistake rather than a situation that would warrant annulment.

b. Parties may go to court for interpretation: While parties may go to court to seek
clarification or interpretation of a contract, the more appropriate remedy in this
situation might be rectification. Rectification involves correcting a mistake in a written
document to reflect the true intentions of the parties.

c. Parties may enforce their right because it is enforceable: If the document erroneously
states a sale instead of a lease, it might be unenforceable as a sale contract (given the
mistake in the document). However, the parties may have the option to rectify the
mistake through legal means, such as seeking a correction of the document to
accurately reflect their original intent.
Since none of the options (a, b, or c) directly addresses the likely remedy of rectification
in the case of a mistake, the correct answer is "None of the above." Rectification is a
more relevant concept when there is a mistake in the drafting of a contract.

3. 470

Answer. D

Article 1311: Effect only between parties, assign and heirs- they have rights and
obligation under a contract.

4. d
The correct answer is "d. None of them."

In legal terms, a fortuitous event refers to an unforeseen or unexpected event that is

beyond the control of either party. It is often an event considered an act of nature, such
as an earthquake, flood, or other natural disaster. When a fortuitous event causes the
loss of the subject matter of a contract, the general principle is that neither the creditor
(party owed a duty or performance) nor the debtor (party obligated to perform) is held
liable for the loss.

This principle is based on the legal concept of force majeure, which recognizes that
parties cannot be held responsible for events that are beyond their control. When such
an event occurs, it is considered an excuse for non-performance. Therefore, if the
subject matter of a contract is lost due to a fortuitous event, neither the creditor nor the
debtor is held accountable for the loss.

The idea is to allocate the risk of such unforeseen events in a way that is fair and
reasonable. Since neither party has control over a fortuitous event, it is considered an
external factor that exempts both parties from liability for the loss.

5. c
The correct answer is:

c. B’s response is a mere inquiry; the P100,000 offer by S is still in force.

In contract law, it's important to distinguish between an inquiry or negotiation and a

counter-offer. Let's break down the options and explain why "c" is the correct choice:
 a. Because of ambiguity, both offers are terminated by operation of law: Ambiguity
alone does not terminate offers by operation of law. Offers can be terminated for
various reasons, but mere ambiguity is not one of them.

b. B’s response is a counter-offer effectively terminating the P10,000 offer and

instigating an offer for P80,000: A counter-offer occurs when the offeree responds with
a new offer, effectively rejecting the original offer. In this scenario, B is inquiring about a
lower price, not making a counter-offer.

c. B’s response is a mere inquiry; the P100,000 offer by S is still in force: This is the
correct choice. B's response is considered a mere inquiry or negotiation, not a rejection
or counter-offer. The original offer of P100,000 by S is still valid and can be accepted by
B.

d. B’s response is a rejection of the P100,000 offer, and there is no offer for P80,000
because it is too indefinite to be an offer: This is not accurate. B's response is an inquiry
about a lower price, and it does not necessarily reject the P100,000 offer. Additionally,
the fact that P80,000 is mentioned suggests a definite offer.

In summary, when a party inquires about a different term or price, it is generally

considered a negotiation or inquiry, and the original offer remains valid unless expressly
rejected.

6. The correct answer is d.

Both contracts are valid and enforceable. Let's analyze each example:

Example No. 1: G, guardian of W, sold W’s house valued at P50,000 for P37,500 or a
lesion by one-fourth of the value.

 Lesion, or inadequacy of price, refers to a grossly inadequate consideration for a thing

sold. In many legal systems, a contract is not automatically void or rescissible merely
because of a lesion.
 While the price in this case is lower than the estimated value, it doesn't automatically
make the contract rescissible. If there was no fraud, undue influence, or other vitiating
factors, the contract may be considered valid and enforceable.

Example No. 2: S sold his house valued at P50,000 for only P10,000 because S did not
know the true value of the house.
 This situation may involve a mistake or lack of knowledge on the part of S regarding the
true value of the house. However, a mistake alone does not necessarily render a contract
void or voidable.
 For a contract to be voidable due to mistake, the mistake must be a material one, and
the party seeking to void the contract must show that the mistake was not due to their
own negligence.

Given the information provided, it is more accurate to say that both contracts are not
automatically rescissible, voidable, or invalid. The validity of a contract often depends on
various factors such as fraud, undue influence, mistake, or other vitiating elements.
Without additional information about such factors, it's not possible to definitively
categorize the contracts as rescissible or voidable. Therefore, the correct answer may be
that the contracts are valid and enforceable unless additional details suggest otherwise
7. a. The correct answer is:

Under Philippine law, a voidable contract is a particular kind of

defective contract that is invalid because of a defect in consent. A
party's consent may be impaired due to erroneous belief (mistake or
fraud) or reprehensible conduct (violence, intimidation, or undue
influence).

a. The stipulation is void because it is contrary to public policy.

The stipulation in the contract, which restricts B2 Corporation from engaging in any
business in the Philippines without the consent and approval of B1 Company, is likely to
be considered void as it runs afoul of public policy. Such restrictive covenants are often
subject to scrutiny, especially when they excessively limit a party's ability to engage in
lawful business activities.

Restrictions on competition are generally disfavored because they may be seen as

contrary to the public interest, which values healthy competition in the marketplace.
Agreements that unduly restrain trade or prevent a party from engaging in a lawful
business may be deemed against public policy and, therefore, void.

In this case, the stipulation appears to be an unreasonable restraint on B2 Corporation's

ability to conduct business in the Philippines without the consent and approval of B1
Company. As a result, it may be considered void due to being contrary to public policy.
I apologize for any confusion in my previous responses. Let's examine why option (a) is
considered the correct answer and why options (b), (c), and (d) are not appropriate:
a. The stipulation is void because it is contrary to public policy.

This is the correct answer. The stipulation in the contract, which restricts B2 Corporation
from engaging in any business in the Philippines without the consent and approval of
B1 Company, may be considered void because it could be viewed as an unreasonable
restraint on trade, contrary to public policy.

Now, let's address the other options:

b. The stipulation is defective but subject to ratification.

This option suggests that the stipulation is merely defective but can be ratified.
However, if a provision is void due to being against public policy, ratification may not
cure the defect. Void provisions are considered as if they never existed, and ratification
typically cannot revive something that is inherently void.

c. The stipulation is valid because the parties are free to enter into any business in the
Philippines unless consented to and approved by B1 Company.

This option incorrectly suggests that parties are free to enter into any business unless
specifically restricted by another party. However, as mentioned earlier, certain
restrictions on business activities may be considered void if they are deemed
unreasonable and against public policy.

d. The stipulation is unenforceable as there was no showing that the was done in
writing.

This option focuses on the formality of the agreement, suggesting that it might be
unenforceable due to lack of a writing. However, the issue with the stipulation is more
related to its substance and potential violation of public policy rather than a lack of a
written form.

In summary, option (a) is the correct choice because it accurately reflects that the
stipulation may be void due to being contrary to public policy.
8. The correct answer is:

d. None of the above

Let's examine each option:

a. Mutual promise to marry entered into orally:

 While it is advisable to have certain contracts in writing, a mutual promise to marry
entered into orally can still be a valid contract. However, some jurisdictions may have
specific legal requirements for the formalities of marriage contracts.

b. Sale of immovable property orally entered into:

 Generally, contracts for the sale of immovable property should be in writing to be

enforceable, as per the statute of frauds. However, the lack of a writing does not
necessarily make the contract invalid. It may be unenforceable due to the statute of
frauds, but it is not categorically invalid.

c. One of the parties in a contract is incapable of giving consent:

 If one party is incapable of giving valid consent (for example, due to mental incapacity),
the contract may be considered voidable. While it may be valid initially, the
incapacitated party has the option to void the contract.

So, none of the options presented inherently represents a contract that is not valid.
However, it's important to note that legal requirements may vary by jurisdiction, and the
specific circumstances of a contract can impact its validity or enforceability. In general, it
is advisable to comply with legal formalities and ensure that contracts are entered into
with the capacity and consent of the parties involved.
9.
I apologize for any confusion in my previous responses. I'll provide further clarification
on why option (b) is considered the correct answer:

b. Contract remains to be valid

The presence of a written promissory note indicates a formal acknowledgment of the

agreement between D and C. While the circumstances surrounding the agreement
involve force or duress (which is an unethical and potentially illegal practice), the written
contract itself is not automatically void.

In legal terms, a contract that is formed under duress may be considered voidable, not
void. Voidable means that the contract is valid and enforceable unless the party
subjected to duress chooses to challenge or void the contract.

In this scenario, if C, the party subjected to duress, decides not to challenge the contract
and continues with the agreement, the contract remains valid and enforceable. C,
however, has the option to seek rescission (voiding) of the contract due to the duress
 involved. If C chooses to void the contract, it would be rescissible, not void or
unenforceable.

So, option (b) correctly reflects the general principle that a contract remains valid unless
the affected party chooses to challenge its validity due to duress or other vitiating
factors.
10.
The correct answer is:

d. Both examples are true

Explanation:

In both examples, the key issue is the requirement of a public instrument for the sale of
real property. Let's break down each example:

Example 1:

 S sold land to B in a private instrument.

 B later wants to have the sale registered, but registration requires a public instrument.
 B may compel S to execute the needed public instrument.

This is true because, in many jurisdictions, the registration of certain transactions,

especially those involving real property, requires a public instrument. If the initial sale
was executed in a private instrument, B has the right to compel S to execute the
necessary public instrument to fulfill the legal requirements for registration.

Example 2:

 S sold land to B orally.

 After B paid S the price of the sale, he wants to register the land in his name, but he
needs a public instrument of sale.
 B may compel S to execute the needed public instrument.

Similarly, in this example, the lack of a written instrument poses a challenge when B
wants to register the land. In many legal systems, the sale of real property, especially
when involving specific land, often requires a written or public instrument. B, having
paid the price, may compel S to execute the necessary public instrument to fulfill the
legal requirements for registration.
In summary, both examples illustrate situations where the need for a public instrument
arises for the registration of the sale of real property, and in both cases, the buyer (B)
has the right to compel the seller (S) to execute the required public instrument.
Therefore, option (d) is correct.
 Contract:
1. The correct answer is:

d. None of them

A void contract is a contract that is considered to be unenforceable from the outset, meaning it is
essentially invalid and has no legal effect. In the context of void contracts:

a. Subject to ratification: Void contracts cannot be ratified because they are fundamentally flawed
and lack legal enforceability.

b. They exist: Void contracts exist in the sense that parties may enter into agreements that are later
deemed void due to legal reasons, such as illegality or incapacity.

c. Action or defense for nullity is subject to prescription: This statement is incorrect. In many legal
systems, actions or defenses for nullity of a void contract are not subject to prescription, as the
voidness of the contract can be raised at any time.

So, none of the given options can be considered as a feature of a void contract.

unenforceable meaning
"Unenforceable" refers to a legal situation where a contract or agreement exists, but for various
reasons, it cannot be enforced by a court of law. Even though the parties may have entered into an
agreement, circumstances or legal principles make it impossible or impractical to enforce the terms
of the contract. There are several reasons why a contract might be deemed unenforceable:

1. Illegal Purpose: If the subject matter or purpose of the contract is illegal, the contract may be
deemed unenforceable.
2. Lack of Capacity: If one or more parties lack the legal capacity to enter into a contract (such as
minors or mentally incapacitated individuals), the contract may be considered unenforceable.
3. Duress: If one party was forced or coerced into entering the contract under duress (threats or
pressure), the contract may be unenforceable.
4. Fraud or Misrepresentation: If a party engaged in fraudulent activities or made material
misrepresentations that influenced the agreement, the contract may be considered unenforceable.
5. Violation of Public Policy: If the contract goes against public policy or violates certain legal
principles, it may be deemed unenforceable.

An unenforceable contract does not provide the parties with the usual legal remedies, such as
monetary damages or specific performance. Courts may refuse to enforce the contract or may
declare it void. It's essential to distinguish between unenforceable contracts and void contracts, as
void contracts are considered to have no legal effect from the beginning.