1.

In two separate documents signed by him, Juan Valentino "obligated" himself each to Maria and to Perla, thus
-'To Maria, my true love, I obligate myself to give you my one and only horse when I feel like It."
- and -
'To Perla, my true sweetheart, I obligate myself to pay you the P500.00 I owe you when I feel like it."
Months passed but Juan never bothered to make good his promises. Maria and Perla came to consult you on
whether or not they could recover on the basis of the foregoing settings. What would your legal advice be?

2. Roland, a basketball star, was under contract for one year to play-for-play exclusively for Lady Love, Inc.
However, even before the basketball season could open, he was offered a more attractive pay plus fringes
benefits by Sweet Taste, Inc. Roland accepted the offer and transferred to Sweet Taste. Lady Love sues Roland
and Sweet Taste for breach of contract. Defendants claim that the restriction to play for Lady Love alone is void,
hence, unenforceable, as it constitutes an undue interference with the right of Roland to enter into contracts
and the impairment of his freedom to play and enjoy basketball. Can Roland be bound by the contract he
entered into with Lady Love or can he disregard the same? Is he liable at all? How about Sweet Taste? Is it liable
to Lady Love?

3. Printado is engaged in the printing business. Suplico supplies printing paper to Printado pursuant to an order
agreement under which Suplico binds himself to deliver the same volume of paper every month for a period of
18 months, with Printado in turn agreeing to pay within 60 days after each delivery. Suplico has been faithfully
delivering under the order agreement for 10 months but thereafter stopped doing so, because Printado has not
made any payment at all. Printado has also a standing contractwith publisher Publico for the printing of 10, 000
volumes of school textbooks. Suplico was aware of said printing contract. After printing 1, 000 volumes, Printado
also fails to perform under its printing contract with Publico. Suplico sues Printado for the value of the unpaid
deliveries under their order agreement. At the same time Publico sues Printado for damages for breach of
contract with respect to their own printing agreement. In the suit filed by Suplico, Printado counters that: (a)
Suplico cannot demand payment for deliveries made under their order agreement until Suplico has completed
performance under said contract; (b) Suplico should pay damages for breach of contract; and (c) with Publico
should be liable for Printado’s breach of his contract with Publico because the order agreement between Suplico
and Printado was for the benefit of Publico. Are the contentions of Printado tenable? Explain your answers as to
each contention.

4. A van owned by Orlando and driven by Diego, while negotiating a downhill slope of a city road, suddenly gained
speed, obviously beyond the authorized limit in the area, and bumped a car in front of it, causing severe damage
to the care and serious injuries to its passengers. Orlando was not in the car at the time of the incident. The car
owner and the injured passengers sued Orlando and Diego for damages caused by Diego’s negligence. In their
defense, Diego claims that the downhill slope caused the van to gain speed and that, as he stepped on the
brakes to check the acceleration, the brakes locked, causing the van to go even faster and eventually to hit the
car in front of it. Orlando and Diego contend that the sudden malfunction of the van’s brake system is a
fortuitous even and that, therefore, they are exempt from any liability. Is this contention tenable? Explain.

5. AB Corp. entered into a contract with XY Corp. whereby the former agreed to construct the research and
laboratory facilities of the latter. Under the terms of the contract, AB Corp. agreed to complete the facility in 18
months, at the total contract price of P10 million. XY Corp. paid 50% of the total contract price, the balance to
be paid upon completion of the work. The work stated immediately, but AB Corp. later experienced work
slippage because of labor unrest in his company. AB Corp.'s employees claimed that they are not being paid on
time; hence, the work slowdown. As of the 17th month, work was only 45% completed. AB Corp. asked for
extension of time, claiming that its labor problems is a case of fortuitous event, but this was denied by XY Corp.
When it became certain that the construction could not be finished on time, XY Corp. sent written notice
cancelling the contract, and requiring AB Corp. to immediately vacate the premises.
Can the labor unrest be considered a fortuitous event?