EASY

1. An obligation ceases to be alternative and becomes a simple obligation in the following cases,
except:
a. when the debtor has communicated his choice to the creditor.
b. when the right of choice has been expressly granted to the creditor and his choice has been
communicated to the debtor.
c. when among the several prestations that are due only one is practicable.
d. when three prestations are due but one of them is unlawful or impossible.

2. Delay or default on the part of the obligor is known as –

a. mora solvendi ex re
b. mora accipiendi
c. mora solvendi ex persona
d. compensation morae
e. Mora solvendi

3. D borrowed from C P100,000 with a penalty of 20% if not paid on time. On due date, D was able to
pay C the borrowed amount. How much should D pay C?
a. P100,000 only
b. P100,000 + 20%
c. P100,000 + 20% + interest
d. P100,000 + 20% + interest + damages

4. Which of the following contracts cannot be ratified?

a. Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction.
b. Unathorized contracts
c. Those where both parties are incapable of giving consent.
d. Those that fail to comply with the Statute of Frauds.

5. Which of the following is correct?

a. An action to enforce judicially a natural obligation prescribes in 4 years
b. An action for annulment of contract is imprescriptible
c. An action to declare a contract void is not subject to prescription
 d. An action for rescission of contract prescribes in five (5) years counted from the execution of the
contract.

6. Which of the following statements is false regarding negligence?

a. Negligence is simply a question of fact, and not of law.

b. In fraud, the liability of the actor cannot be reduced by the court, while in negligence, the
liability may be equitably tempered by the court.
c. The test of negligence is: Did the actor in doing the alleged negligent act use reasonable care
and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If yes,
then he is guilty of negligence.
d. None of the above

7. Woody is obliged to give Buzz Lightyear his only car on July 14, 2012. On said date, Woody did not
deliver. On July 15, 2012, an earthquake completely ruined the car. Is Woody still liable?

a. YES, Woody is already in legal delay; thus, the obligation to deliver the lost specific thing is
converted into monetary claim for damages.
b. YES, Buzz Lightyear can instead demand for a substitute of equivalent value from Woody.
c. NO, Considering that no demand to deliver was made by Buzz Lightyear and the specific thing
was lost due to fortuitous event, the obligation is extinguished.
d. NO, The obligation is extinguished, even if Woody is already in default because he can plead the
impossibility of performance in this case.

8. Subingsubing owns a sculpture. Being in need of money, Subingsubing sold the sculpture to Estella
for 5,000. After the sale, Subingsubing discovered that the sculpture was valuable and is actually
worth 50,000. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. Subingsubing may annul the contract on the ground of error.

B. Subingsubing may annul the contract on the ground of fraud.
C. Estella is entitled to the benefit of the contract because it is valid and binding.
D. Estella is bound to pay for the difference; otherwise, there will be unjust enrichment.

9. Contracts of pledge, loan and deposit are examples of:

A. Consensual contracts
B. Real contracts
C. Solemn contracts
D. Formal contracts

10. Reluctantly and against her good sense and judgment, Oral entered into a contract for the delivery
of a suitcase to Alob for a price of only Php 999.00. The contract is:

A. Valid
B. Void
 C. Voidable
D. Unenforceable

AVERAGE

1. Roy and Carlos both undertook a contract to deliver to Sam in Manila a boat docked in Subic. Before
they could deliver it, however, the boat sank in a storm. The contract provides that fortuitous event
shall not exempt Roy and Carlos from their obligation. Owing to the loss of the motor boat, such
obligation is deemed converted into one of indemnity for damages. Is the liability of Roy and Carlos
joint or solidary? (2011 Bar)
a. Neither solidary nor joint since they cannot waive the defense of fortuitous event to which they
are entitled.
b. Solidary or joint upon the discretion of Sam.
c. Solidary since Roy and Carlos failed to perform their obligation to deliver the motor boat.
d. Joint since the conversion of their liability to one of indemnity for damages made it joint.

2. A, B and C are jointly and severally liable to D amounting to P900,000. D allows C an extension of
two years within which to pay his portion of the indebtedness. In this case:
a. D can compel A or B to pay him the entire P900,000.
b. D can compel A or B or C to pay him P600,000.
c. D can demand only P300,000 each from A and B.
d. D can compel only A or B to pay him P600,000.

3. Orencia is the owner of a car which was sold by Say without authorization in favor of Billy. The
contract between Say and Billy in so far as Orencia is concerned is:
a. Valid c. Unenforceable
b. Rescissible d. Voidable

4. The action for annulment must be brought within four years. Which of the following is false with
respect to the reckoning of the beginning of the prescriptive period?
a. In cases of intimidation, violence and undue influence, the period begins from the time the
defect in the consent ceases.
b. In case of fraud, the period begins to run from the discovery thereof.
c. In case of mistake, the period begins to run from the time it was committed.
d. In cases of contracts entered into by minors or other incapacitated persons, the period runs
from the time guardianship ceases.

5. On April 14, 2012, Sameon wrote a letter to Suarez offering to sell her (Sameon’s) resort located at
Boracay, Philippines. On April 15, 2012 at 7:00am, Suarez sent a letter of acceptance which was
received by Sameon at 2pm that day. But at 11am earlier, Sameon sent Suarez a letter withdrawing
her previous offer, which letter was received by Suarez at 6pm. Was the contract perfected?
A. No, because there is no meeting of minds.
B. No, because Suarez did not accept Sameon’s offer.
C. Yes, because Sameon’s offer was accepted by Suarez.
D. Yes, because Suarez received the withdrawal after her acceptance.
6. Balbona applied for a life annuity of One Million pesos payable annually at a certain branch of a
certain insurance company. She paid one million and was issued a provisional receipt. Her
application was forwarded to the main office. However, the notice granting her application was
received barely a day after she became insane. Can her legal heirs still recover the One Million pesos
paid by Balbona to the insurance company?

A. No, because there is no consent yet in this case.

B. No, because the contract is already consummated.
C. Yes, because insanity will render the offer ineffective.
D. Yes, because otherwise, there would be unjust enrichment.

7. I. All crimes result in civil liability because every person criminally liable shall also be civilly
liable.
II. Obligations derived from law are never presumed.
III. Obligations arising from delict have the force of law between the contracting parties.

A. False, True, False

B. True, False, False
C. True, True, False
D. False, False, False

8. Rizon is a former lawyer who suffered from severe paranoia and was confined in a mental hospital in
2005. After his release therefrom, he was placed under the guardianship of Tinga to enable him to
get his retirement pay. In 2008, Rizon became a mining prospector and sold a mining claim. In 2011,
he sued to annul the sale claiming that he was mentally incapacitated at the time of sale. The sale is:

A. Valid
B. Void
C. Voidable
D. Unenforceable

9. Recla offered to sell her car for Php 500,000 to Embolode, who is interested in buying the same. In
her letter to Embolode, Recla expressly stated that she is giving five (5) days to Embolode within
which to decide. However, barely one (1) day after Embolode received the letter, Recla informed her
that she already sold the car to Ramos. Furious, Embolode filed a case in court to rescind the
contract of sale between Recla and Ramos with damages. Will the case prosper?

A. No, because in the first place, there is no contract to rescind.

B. No, because Embolode is not a party to the contract between Recla and Ramos.
C. Yes, because Recla acted in bad faith by not waiting for the decision of Embolode.
D. Yes, because the five-day period has not yet lapsed.

10. With the intention of raising money to buy a gun which he would use in killing X, his mortal enemy,
Y sold his only car for P100,000.00 cash to Z who knew nothing of the intention of Y in selling the
car. After the sale, Y was able to buy a gun complete with all the papers required by law. Z, on the
 other hand, was able to register the car in his name at the Land Transportation Office (LTO). Which
of the following is correct?

a. The sale of the car by Y to Z is valid provided Y does not kill X.

b. The sale of the car by Y to Z is void if Y kills X.
c. The sale of the car by Y to Z is valid whether Y kills X or not.
d. The sale of the car by Y to Z is void whether Y kills X or not.

DIFFICULT

1. B, while drunk, accepted a passenger in his taxicab. B then drove the tax recklessly, and inevitably, it
crashed into an electric post, resulting in serious physical injuries to the passengers. The latter then
filed a suit for tort against B's operator, A, but A raised the defense of having exercised
extraordinary diligence in the safety of the passenger. Is his defense tenable? (2011 Bar)
a. Yes, as a common carrier can rebut the presumption of negligence by raising such a defense.
b. No, as in tort actions, the proper defense is due diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee by the employer.
c. No, as B, the common carrier's employee, was obviously negligent due to his intoxication.
d. Yes, as a common carrier can invoke extraordinary diligence in the safety of passengers in tort
cases.

2. A obliged himself to deliver to B the following:

1.) 2009 Sing-It Yamaha Organ
2.) Malagona passenger jeepney with engine No. 69 and chassis No. 88
First statement – In case a failed to deliver the 2006 Yamaha Organ, the court may compel A to
deliver the 2006 Yamaha Organ plus damages.

Second statement – In case A failed to deliver the jeepney, the court may compel A to deliver the
jeepney plus damages.

a. True, true c. False, true

b. True, false d. False, false

3. On May 1, 2012, D executed a written undertaking obliging himself to deliver 100 sacks of rice to C
on May 31, 2012. On May 28, 2012, C demanded the delivery of 100 sacks of rice from D but D did
not comply. The following day, a fire of undetermined origin destroyed D's warehouse together with
about 500 sacks of rice stored therein and from which D intended to get 100 sacks of rice for
delivery to C.
a. D's obligation to deliver 100 sacks of rice to C is extinguished, the cause of the loss being a
fortuitous event.
b. D's obligation to deliver 100 sacks of rice to C is not extinguished because he can get 100 sacks
of rice from other sources.
c. D's obligation to deliver 100 sacks of rice to C is not extinguished because D was in default.
d. D's obligation is to pay damages because he was in default.
4. A, B, and C are liable to X to deliver the 90,000 sack of sugar in Y warehouse on January 5, 2008. On
January 6, 2008, X demanded from A to deliver the sugar. However on January 8, 2008, a fire was
broke in Y warehouse because of lightning and the entire 90,000 sacks of sugar was totally loss.
a. X can held each of them (A, B and C) liable for 30,000 sacks of sugar because they are already in
delay before the object was loss by fortuitous event.
b. X can held any of them (A, B and C) liable for 90,000 sacks of sugar because they are already in
delay before the object was loss by fortuitous event.
c. A, B and C is not liable because the loss was due to fortuitous event.
d. A is liable for the 30,000 sack of sugars because he was already in delay but B and C obligation is
extinguished because they are not in legal delay and the loss was due to fortuitous event.

5. Lennie bought a business class ticket from Alta Airlines. As she checked in, the manager downgraded
her to economy on the ground that a Congressman had to be accommodated in the business class.
Lennie suffered the discomfort and embarrassment of the downgrade. She sued the airlines for
quasi-delict but Alta Airlines countered that, since her travel was governed by a contract between
them, no quasi-delict could arise. Is the airline correct? (2011 Bar)
a. No, the breach of contract may in fact be tortious as when it is tainted as in this case with
arbitrariness, gross bad faith, and malice.
b. No, denying Lennie the comfort and amenities of the business class as provided in the ticket is a
tortious act.
c. Yes, since the facts show a breach of contract, not a quasi-delict.
d. Yes, since quasi-delict presupposes the absence of a pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties.

6. D borrowed from C P1,000,000 mortgaging in favor of the latter his house and lot. Said obligation is
due December 15, 2012. On July 20,2011 the house was hit by a lighting and was destroyed. In this
case:
a. C can validly demand payment from D on July 20, 2011 because the latter losses the right to
make use of the period upon the impairment of the collateral.
b. C can validly demand payment from D on July 20,2011 unless D gives another collateral equally
satisfactory.
c. C cannot collect on July 20,2011 because in the nature of an obligation with a period the debt
can only become demandable upon the arrival of the period.
d. The obligation of D to C is extinguished because of the loss of the collateral through a fortuitous
event.

7. The following are either joint or solidary liability:

I. Liability of the principal and the agent when the former allowed the agent to act as though he
had full powers.
II. Liability of two or more persons who have appointed an agent for a common transaction or
undertaking.
III. Liability of two or more bailees to whom a thing is loaned in the same contract.
IV. The responsibility of two or more agents who are appointed simultaneously by the principal.
V. Responsibility of two or more officious managers.
a. The liability under I, II, III, IV and V are solidary
b. The liability under I, II, III and V are solidary.
c. The liability under II and IV are joint.
d. The liability under I, II, III and IV are solidary.

8. A piece of land was the subject of a litigation between Mariano and City of Manila. After the case had
been decided in favor of Mariano, he sold it to Bugaring.
a. The sale can be rescinded because the subject matter is the subject of litigation
 b. The sale cannot be rescinded because the litigation had been decided in favor of Mariano prior to
the sale.
c. The sale can be rescinded because it is considered an act to defraud creditor.
d. The sale cannot be rescinded because disposition of the things under litigation without the
approval of the litigant or competent court is not ground for rescission to prosper.

9. Angelita Madaya, guardian of Nene Batambata, a minor, sold the palay harvested from the land
belonging to Nene Batambata for P39,000.00 on January 15, 2008. The palay had a value of
P80,000.00. At the time of the sale, Nene Batambata was only seventeen (17) years and 354 days
old. On July 25, 2012, Nene wants to recover the damages he suffered under the contract entered
into by his guardian. What is the remedy available to Nene Batambata?
a. Annulment because Nene Batambata was only 17 years and 354 days old at the time the sale
was made by Angelita Madaya.
b. Rescission because Nene Batambata suffered lesion of P41,000.00.
c. Both rescission and annulment at the option of Nene Batambata.
d. Nene batambata cannot rescind nor annul the contract.

10. S, an employee of a private company, sold his car for P100,000.00 to B, whom he knew was only
17 years old. S delivered the car to B who immediately paid the amount of P100,000.00. Later, S
was transferred to another branch of his employer which was quite a distance from his residence. He
wanted to get back the car from B so that will have something to use in going to and from his new
office. Neither B nor his guardian has registered the sale with the Land Transportation Office.
a. S can file an action to annul the sale he made to B because he was mistaken in selling the car
which he realized he badly needed.
b. S can ask the court to annul the sale because B was a minor when the contract of sale was
entered into.
c. Only B, when he attains the age of majority, or his guardian, while B is still a minor, can bring an
action to annul the contract.
d. The minority of B has no effect on the validity of the contract since the parties entered into the
contract of sale freely.