Sixth (6th) Assignment for Week (May 25 to May 29, 2020)

1. Read Articles 1403 to 1430 of the Civil Code

2. Submit your answer on the following questions on or before 8:00PM on Friday,
May 29, 2020;

Questions:
1. Distinguish Unenforceable Contracts from Void Contracts? Are these contracts
valid? (4pts)
Unenforceable Contracts are those that cannot be enforced in court or sued
upon by reason of defects provided by law until and unless they are ratified
according to law. The law provides under Article 1403 the kinds of contracts that
are unenforceable, unless they are ratified. On the other hand, Void contracts are
those which, because of certain defects, generally produce no effect at all. They
are considered as inexistent from its inception or from the very beginning. The
expression ‘‘void contract” is, therefore, a contradiction in terms. However, the
expression is often loosely used to refer to an agreement tainted with illegality.
The law provides under Article 1409 the kinds of contracts that are inexistent and
void from the beginning. These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right
to set up the defense of illegality be waived.

No, because only the unenforceable contracts can be validated when there
is ratification. An unenforceable contract occupies an intermediate ground
between a voidable and a void contract. On the other hand, void contracts are
absolutely null and void. They have no legal effect at all and cannot be ratified.
2. Kai entered into a Contract of Loan with Sotto where Kai borrowed the amount of
Php100,000.00 pesos. Elmer, the friend of Kai, verbally promised to Sotto that he
will answer the debt in case Kai cannot pay. On due date, Kai failed to pay. Can
Sotto demand payment from Elmer? Explain. (4pts)
No, Sotto cannot demand payment from Elmer because the agreement
between them is unenforceable by action. Elmer’s special promise to answer for
the indebtedness of Kai does not comply with the requirement of the Statute of
Frauds which is classes of contracts to be in writing because it was done verbally.
Also, this promise is deemed collateral which results to the unreliability of the
promise since Elmer is not primarily liable for Kai’s indebtedness. The law
provides under Article 1403 that “the following contracts are unenforceable,
unless they are ratified.” One of these contracts are “(2) those that do not comply
with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number.” One of the “cases an
agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or
 some note or memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party
charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received
without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents” is “(b) a special
promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another.” On the other
hand, if the promise of Elmer is absolute in form or an original promise, Sotto can
demand payment from him because such promise is enforceable by action. It is not
within the Statute of Frauds and may be proved by oral evidence.

3. Alvin and Jerric, both 14 years old, entered into a Deed of Donation wherein Alvin
donated his motorcycle in favour of Jerric. Their neighbour named Johnny, filed a
case in the court questioning the Deed of Donation for being unenforceable? Will
the court entertain the case filed by Johnny? Explain. (4pts)
No, the court will not entertain the case filed by Johnny. Johnny who is a
third person cannot assail the contract because of its unenforceability. Also, the
Statute of Frauds cannot be set up as a defense by third persons to the transaction.
The benefit of the Statute can only be claimed or waived by one who is a party or
privy to the oral contract, not by Johnny. The law provides under Article 1408 that
“unenforceable contracts cannot be assailed by third persons.”

4. Jason (seller) and Harrel (buyer) agreed to enter into a Deed of Sale of a piece of
land located in Siquijor in the amount of Php1,000,000.00. The said piece of land
however, is inexistent because Jason does not own any land in Siquijor. After 25
years from the execution of the Deed of Sale, Harrel questioned the validity of the
Deed of Sale. On the other hand, Jason argued that the Deed of Sale was already
valid considering the lapse of already 25 years. Who between Jason and Harrel is
correct? Explain. (4pts)
Between the two parties, Harrel is correct. It is not necessary for Harrel to
question the validity of the sale for there was, in contemplation of law no contract
at all. He has acquired no right by virtue of the sale which was void and inexistent.
However, to avoid instances where one party refuses to restore what he has
received out of a void contract, it is right that Harrel went to the court first to avoid
inconvenience or to avoid taking the law into his own hands. On the other hand,
the argument of Jason is incorrect because the lapse of 25 years which is his
defense does not validate the void contract. It suffered from an incurable defect
that could not be ratified anymore even by the lapse of time. The law provides
under Article 1410 that “the action or defense for the declaration of the
inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.”

5. Osama filed a collection case against Donald for failure of Donald to pay his debt.
The court dismissed the case on the ground of technicality. Thus, Donald won the
case. After several months, Donald voluntarily paid his debt to Osama. However,
after one week, Donald’s wife insisted that Donald must get back what he has paid
to Osama since he already won the case. Can Donald claim back what he has paid
to Osama? Explain. (4pts)
No, Donald cannot claim back what he has paid to Osama. He has
voluntarily performed his obligation even though he has no obligation anymore
since he had won the case. He must be deemed to have considered it his moral
duty to fulfill his obligation. The law provides under Article 1428 that “when,
after an action to enforce a civil obligation has failed, the defendant voluntarily
performs the obligation, he cannot demand the return of what he has delivered or
the payment of the value of the service he has rendered.”