Part II Flashcards
Contracts may take effect not only between the parties, their assigns and heirs.
TRUE.
It may take effect as to third person incases where there is a stipulation pour autrui.
Real contracts are perfected by mere consent.
FALSE.
Because real contracts are perfected upon the delivery of the object or subject matter of the contract.
Mistake as to the qualifications of one of the parties vitiates consent.
FALSE.
Because in Article 1331 in order for the consent to be vitiated such identity or qualification must have been the principal cause of the contract.
In other words, pag bumibili ka ng saging does it matter kung akala niya abogado ka o hindi o doctor ka? Ordinarily it does not matter. There will only be vitiation of consent if yung qualification is the main consideration in entering into the contract. Malay natin, baka contract of guaranty pala iyon.
If fraud was employed in obtaining consent, the contract is voidable.
FALSE. Because only fraud dolo causante will make the contract voidable. In cases of fraud dolo incidente the contract will not be voidable.
Fraud dolo causante or casual fraud refers to those deceptions or misrepresentations of a serious character employed by one party and without which the other party would not have entered into the contract. Dolo causante renders the contractvoidable.
Fraud dolo incidenet, or incidental fraud, refers to those decpeptions or misrepresentations which are not serious in character and without which the other party would have still entered into the contract. Dolo incidente renders the party who induced the other, liable for damages.
Article 1338. There is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would not have agreed to.
Article 1344. In order that fraud may make a contract voidable, it should be serious and should not have been employed by both contracting parties.
Incidental fraud only obliges the person employing it to pay damages.
The contract is void if the cause is not stated in the contract.
FALSE. Article 1354. Although the cause is not stated in the contract, it is presumed that it exists and is lawful unless the debtor proves the contrary.
Disputable presumption
Under the consensuality of contracts principle, the contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient.
FALSE, because under the consensuality of contracts principle it provides that the parties must voluntarily give their consent to the contract and no one can compel the parties to enter into the contract.
The definition given in the statement pertains to the autonomy or liberty of contracts principle.
An offer made through the agent is accepted from the time acceptance is communicated to the principal.
FALSE. Article 1322. An offer made through an agent is accepted from the time acceptance is communicated TO HIM. To the agent mismo.
Contracts of deposit, pledge and mutuum are not perfected until the delivery of the object of the obligation.
TRUE. Because even if mutuum is not one of those enumerated under Article 1316, mutuum or simple loan is also a real contract.
Article 1316. Real contracts, such as deposit, pledge and commodatum, are not perfected until the delivery of the object of the obligation.
The illegality of the motives of the parties in entering into a contract do not affect the validity of the contract.
FALSE. Because it is only the general rule. If the motive is illegal it MAY actually affect the validity of the contract.
If the motive of the seller in selling his property is to defraud his creditors anong status ng contract? Rescissible.
Halimbawa X and Y husband and wife, ang husband binenta niya ang lupa kay A, a few days after binenta ni A kay wife, sa tingin mo ano ang status ng mga contract na yan? VOID.
Article 1490. The husband and the wife cannot sell property to each other, except:
(1) When a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage settlements; or
(2) When there has been a judicial separation of property under article 191.
A contact maybe voidable even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties.
TRUE.
Article 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties:
(1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract;
(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.
These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification.
With the intention of raising money to buy a gun which he would use in Killing X, his mortal enemy, S sold his only car for P100,000.00 cash to B who knew nothing of the intention of S in selling the car. After the sale, S was able to buy a gun complete with all the papers required by law. B, on the other hand, was able to register the car in his name at the Land Transportation Office.
A. the sale of the car by S to B is valid provided S does not kill X.
B. the sale of the car by S to B is void if S kills X
C. the sale of the car by S to B is valid if X does not die
D. the sale of the car by S to B is void whether S kills X or not.
E. None of the above
E. Because the sale is Valid. The Illegality of the motive does not affect the validity of the contract of sale as rule.
Article 1351. The particular motives of the parties in entering into a contract are different from the cause thereof.
In general, what is the cause of the contract
Article 1350. In onerous contracts the cause is understood to be, for each contracting party, the prestation or promise of a thing or service by the other; in remuneratory ones, the service or benefit which is remunerated; and in contracts of pure beneficence, the mere liberality of the benefactor.
As to the seller the cause is the promise of the buyer to pay the price. And as to the buyer, it is the promise of the seller to deliver and transfer ownership over the thing. Yun ang cause, ang cause is just the essential reason why he entered into the contract.
On February 1, 2018 Perfecto offered to sell his house and lot to Reynaldo for P1.5M. Perfecto told Reynaldo that he was giving Reynaldo up to February 28, 2018 to decide whether to buy or not the house and lot. Reynaldo accepted the option but did not give anything to Perfecto to support the option given to him. On February 20, 2018, Perfecto found another buyer who was ready to buy the house and lot for P2M. Perfecto wants to ask you whether he can still withdraw the offer he made to Reynaldo. Decide.
Yes, Perfecto may withdraw the offer by just informing Reynaldo of such fact.
Because the problem involves only an option agreement, in which case the option is not supported by a consideration, thus Perfecto may withdraw at any time just by informing Reynaldo of such fact.
Article 1324. 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.
This is just an option agreement. In an option contract the offeror cannot withdraw at anytime because that will be a breach of contract.
A contract of deposit is:
A. A remuneratory contract
B. A gratuitous contract
C. A lucrative contract
D. An onerous contract
E. None of the above.
E.
Because a contract of deposit may be an onerous or a gratuitous contract.
The elements of a contract without which a contract would not exist are known as:
A. Accidental elements
B. Civil elements
C. Natural elements
D. Essential elements
E. None of the above
D
The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clause, terms, and conditions as they may deem convenient provided, they are not contrary to law, morals, goods customs, public order or public policy. This is known as:
A. Liberty of Contract
B. Mutuality of contracts
C. Privity of contracts
D. Obligatory force of contract
E. None of the above.
A.
It is synonymous with autonomy of contracts or freedom of contract yun din ang tawag sa kanila.
One of the following is not a real contract:
A. Pledge
B. Commodatum
C. Deposit
D. Mutuum
E. None of the above
E
It is the manifestation of the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract.
A. Consideration
B. Contract
C. Consent
D. Cause
E. Option
C.
Article 1319. Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer.
On May 1, 2020, S offered to sell a specific car to B for P500,000. B sent his letter of acceptance to S
on May 8, 2020. On May 10, 2020, however, S died in a vehicular accident and his secretary received the letter of acceptance on May 12, 2020 unaware that S had died.
A. The contract was perfected on May 8, 2020 when B sent his letter of acceptance
B. The contract was perfected on May 12, 2020 when the secretary of S received the letter of acceptance.
C. The contract was not perfected because the offer of S became ineffective when he died.
D. The contract was perfected on May 1, 2020 because the acceptance made by B in May 8, 2020 retroacts to the date of the offer.
E. None of the above.
C.
Article 1323. An offer becomes ineffective upon the death, civil interdiction, insanity, or insolvency of either party before acceptance is conveyed.
Cognition theory – this goes into the perfection of contract, at least as to
consensual contract, where the contract is perfected only when the offer was actually communicated.
Which will not make a contract voidable?
A. Mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the object of the contract
B. Mistake as to the principal conditions which principally moved one or both parties to enter into the contract
C. Mistake as to the identity or qualifications of one of the parties, which identity or qualification have been the principal cause of the of the contract.
D. Simple mistake of account
E. None of the above.
D.
Article 1331. In order that mistake may invalidate consent, it should refer to the substance of the thing which is the object of the contract, or to those conditions which have principally moved one or both parties to enter into the contract.
Mistake as to the identity or qualifications of one of the parties will vitiate consent only when such identity or qualifications have been the principal cause of the contract.
A simple mistake of account shall give rise to its correction.
Remedy is to ask for correction of entry.
Take note kung kelan nagiging voidable ang contrata because mistake, because it is not every kind of mistake. It is mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the object of the contract or may be as to the principal conditions which principally moved one or both parties to enter into the contract. And of course, mistake as to identity. Then MAY, okay, may result in a voidable contract.
It is present when one of the contracting parties is compelled by reasonable and well-grounded fear of
an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, of upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to get his consent.
A. Violence
B. Physical coercion
C. Undue influence
D. Intimidation
E. Error
D.
Article 1335. There is violence when in order to wrest consent, serious or irresistible force is employed.
There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his consent.
To determine the degree of intimidation, the age, sex and condition of the person shall be borne in mind.
A threat to enforce one’s claim through competent authority, if the claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent.
A contract of sale undertaken in fraud of creditors where the buyer acted in good faith is
VALID.
Because the buyer has acted in good faith.
Note: Rescission is not the remedy here that is why it is not rescissible.
The vendor if a private land is a former Filipino citizen -
VALID.
Because what is prohibited by the constitution is the acquisition of private lands by a foreign citizen, as a rule. A sale of a property by the vendor is a disposition of a property not an acquisition of the property.
Is there a rule na bawal ang mga aliens to own private lands? None. Aliens area allowed to own a private land. Ang bawal sabi ng constitution is for
aliens to acquire private lands. Yun ang tama, yun ang nakasulat.
But even that prohibition to acquire merong exception ang batas, una, the alien may own a private land by way of succession, so hindi sila bawala mag may ari. Bawal mag acquire as alien.
Pangalawa, maski sale pwede naman pala, bumili nga lupa pwede ang alien, Constitution din ito, as long as he is a former NATURAL BORN FILIPINO CITIZEN AND this is only for RESIDENTIAL purposes.
Kaya hindi sila pinababawalan mag may ari. Concretely tinanong na ito sa bar exam, ang mga mag asawang ito mga Pilipino bumili ng lupa unregistered land, later on nag migrates sila sa Canda at nagging citizen doon. Did they lose ownership over the land? Of course not, Kaya kapag bumalik sila sa pilipinas to apply for the registration of the land, inopose ng OSG tam aba
ang opposition nila? HINDI, kasi hindi nila inaquire as aliens, inaquire nila noong filipino pa sila. Kaya can they continue to own the land? YES, hindi kasama sa prohibition sa batas
The motive of one of the parties in entering into the contract was unlawful -
VALID.
Article 1351. The particular motives of the parties in entering into a contract are different from the cause thereof.
Therefore, who cares if the motive is illegal or unlawful, since it does not affect the essential requisites of a contract so it should not affect the validity. But, actually, kaya valid ang sagot, kasi sabi ko sa instruction AS A RULE, as a rule ano ang status. In other words, this contract where motive is unlawful, as a rule, VALID. But if the motive is illegal it may actually affect the validity of the contract.
In general, when would that happen, when would the validity be affected if the motive is unlawful
or illegal?
Maski hindi alam ng both parties na illegal ang motive, ang importante dito ay yung party, doon sa isang party, kahit hindi alam nung isa. When the motive of one of the parties predominates the purpose of the party in entering into the contract.
For example, ako nalang mag bibigya, if the purpose of the seller is to defraud his creditors do you think the contract will be void? No, it will be rescissible. So at least maapektuhan ang validity, kasi defective ang
contrata, pero hindi void.
But there are instances where the contract would really be void. Kung ang purpose eh just to circumvent the law, ay naku void yan.
Contract where the consideration is liberality -
VALID.
Ang tawag sa characteristic of the contract is?
Contract of pure beneficence or more popularly know as Gratuitous contract or also known as Lucrative contract.
Donation is not a characteristic, it is not even a contract.
Oral sale of a parcel of land for P2 Million where the buyer paid P100,000 upon signing and the balance payable in two years -
VALID.
Because there is already a partial performance. Partial performance or fulfillment of the obligation which would take out the contract out of the operation of the statutes of fraud. Again, ang statutes of frauds is only
applicable to WHOLLY EXECUTORY CONTRACTS.
The signature of one of the parties was affixed without his knowledge.
VOID.
Because of the absence of one of the essential elements which is consent.
Without consent is not the same as vitiated ang consent. In the latter, nagbigay ka ng consent pero napilitan ka lang siguro or na defraud ka kaya pumayag ka. Pero if without his knowledge obviously walang consent, eh wala kang binigay, at dito papasok ang isa sa mga essential element which is the consent of the contracting parties. Kaya void, void na void. Ang unenforceable naman, nirepresent siya ng iba without his consent, eh dito wala naman representation eh, kaya mali din yan.
One of the parties to the contract is a corporation which is not registered with the SEC -
VOID. Because a corporation not registered with the SEC has no juridical personality, thus it is incapable of giving consent.
It is the registration with the SEC that vests the juridical personality to the corporation.
During the marriage where the spouses executed a marriage settlement wherein, they agreed for a conjugal partnership of gains, the wife sold her land to her husband -
VOID.
Art. 1490. In order for the parties to fall into the exception, the marriage settlement must be complete separation of
properties.
One of the parties is 20 years of age -
VALID. Under RA6809 it lowered the age of majority from 21 to 18 years old, thus the 20-year-old can validly enter into contract.
One of the parties to the contract while insane entered in to the contact during his lucid interval.
VALID.
Article 1328. Contracts entered into during a lucid interval are valid. Contracts agreed to in a state of drunkenness or during a hypnotic spell are voidable.
A contract between 2 insane persons -
UNENFORCEABLE.
Article 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
(3) Those where both parties are incapable of giving consent to a contract.
Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into with the approval of the litigants -
VALID.
Article 1381. The following contracts are rescissible:
(4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority;
